-
#1700 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 08:11
-
It's a temporal issue, my good doctor. Time is assymetric.
As Rafiki sez: "Loook harder"
That just gave me a philosophygasm. Maybe this better illustrates why time is asymmetric. I know it sounds stupid, but seriously though, Simba's young appearance isn't symmetrical with his adult appearance.
The myriad of chemical reactions that happened inside your body over the years which took you from the person you used to be to the person you are now are not reversible. They must obey thermodynamics and the arrow of time.
The fact that we experience time at all is set forth in T-symmetry, our expanding universe, and thermodynamics, but the rate in which we experience time is a function of our velocity and position with respect to the local gravity well (gravitational potential) and the depth of the gravity well. Here on earth, our well is defined by all the matter around us within our galaxy. This is further expanded on by our galaxy's position within galaxy clusters, superclusters, etc. Given this, it is known that the rate of which you experience time is fully dependent on your acceleration with respect to your local frame of reference and the universe as a whole, and your position in the gravity well you exist in. Place yourself in intergalactic space, outside of any dominant gravity well (except the universe itself) you would experience acceleration (very small acceleration) only with respect to the universe at large. Because you have very little acceleration and have a very small velocity, you would experience time much differently with respect to the rate of which a person residing on planet earth would. Time would not stop though because the universe is expanding. This is demonstrated by the experiments where a cesium beam clock was flown around, while another synchronized cesium beam clock was left on earth. They experienced time differently. The ones on the planes experienced time more slowly/less slowly/faster. Depending on frame of reference and how you look at it. This effect was modified by flying east or west around the world. The same principle applies to astronauts on the ISS. They experience time differently by virtue of their velocity and their position with respect to the bottom of the local gravity well. They experience time differently than we do. Their altitude makes time go by faster for them but their velocity makes time go by more slowly for them with respect to the earth, the difference is lost in heat. The difference in time experienced is a known calculable quantity. You don't need to go very fast in order to time travel. You can also go very slow. The vector magnitude of the rate which you experience time depends on the direction you are moving, either toward, away, or around your local gravitational well. I think that the difference in potential between two objects with equal and opposite velocities (experiencing time differently) can be expressed most simply as heat, or differently, the difference in potential between two objects experiencing time at different rates can be expressed as energy. This energy, when concentrated over a small area of space, gives rise to mass, which deforms spacetime, creating a gravity well.
So if I got this right; go fast and your watch runs slow. Go high and your watch runs fast. Go high and fast around your gravity well, against or with rotation, you get faster or slower clock, modified by the base rate set by your gravitational potential based on your height in your local gravity well. Go down or up your gravity well, no real useful clock difference because the temporal difference in potential is lost to heat, meaning more and more energy is needed due to those pesky conservation laws (why we can't go as fast as C). Spiral down your gravity well while accelerating? Not sure. I can make time go by faster or slower but never stop time or reverse it. This doesn't really help us much in a spherical universe.
Anyway, all of this is relevant to the emdrive (asymmetric universe inside, asymmetric difference with our universe outside) by virtue of the true origin of inertia. Inertia is the resistance of an object to changes to movement and acceleration. Acceleration happens over time. What I'm picturing inside the emdrive, if particles have more inertia on the round end than they do on the small end, there is an inertial difference of potential, a temporal difference of potential, which has to be balanced. How is it balanced? By mechanical motion of the apparatus? By uneven heating of the conical cavity? By uneven momentum of the particles within the cavity and uneven heating, causing it to move? Yeah that's it. Does this explain the anomalous thrust? Sounds consistent with GR and SR to me.
An interesting after thought is how angular momentum and differences between angular momentum play a role in the magnitude time is slowed.....and what can we do with that knowledge. If converting differences in linear momentum to differences of angular momentum within emdrive (a consequence of the inertial gradient) could be accomplished...........you would get something very exciting.
-
#1701 by Rodal on 08 Oct, 2014 11:51
-
A lesson on persistence and resilience from this year's Nobel Physics winner :
“Initially, people said this research wouldn’t be completed within the 20th century, so colleagues left, one after another,” Mr. Akasaki [Nobel Prize in Physics, 2014] said,
“It never occurred to me to abandon it. I just continued doing what I wanted to do. It didn’t matter to me whether I would succeed or fail.”
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2014 was awarded jointly to Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura "for the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources". -
#1702 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 12:48
-
Anyway the ideas concerning time, space, energy and conservations of thereof, in my view, point to a discrepancy between linear and angular momentum, the nature of which I don't know. I believe the universe is completely and consistent in conservation and symmetry down to .0000000000000000000000000000?
?? decimal points, but the little bit leftover is what is left to play with. In the context of infinity, that little bit is enough.
I don't see why there is a perceived dichotomy between philosophy and science, as long as each applies their tenets equally, they are consistent with each other.
Edit:
It is probably pi. -
#1703 by JohnFornaro on 08 Oct, 2014 14:08
-
philosophygasm
Not at all sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. As always, assuming the good. ...
First, your retelling of part of the story regarding time's apparent assymetry was very well written. So thank you for that.
Still, many events in the universe are seen as being reversible, particularly on the quantum level.Quote from: MulletronPlace yourself in intergalactic space...
I asked you to show me one particle which is not accelerating, and you can't, because all particles are accelerating somehow...Quote from: MulletronAnyway, all of this is relevant to the emdrive (asymmetric universe inside, asymmetric difference with our universe outside) by virtue of the true origin of inertia.
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement. We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is.
Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken.
If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur. How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one? Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur? Third, does it ever have pragmatic application, since the decimal point you mention (.0000000000000000000000000000???) is so tiny?
The bottom line distillation of the experimental apparatus is simply that they assert that they can convert electrical energy to forward momentum, somehow taking advantage of the Energy-momentum relation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
At the same time, as I've hinted at here and there in this thread, I intuitively hold the view that the old Cartesian model of reality (that there were two interacting kinds of substance - mental and physical)>wasis limited.
Per Bohm, "the whole notion of active information suggests a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter". Which ties into the Akashic records mentioned earlier; part of a unified theory that I'm working on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_orderQuote from: David BohmIn the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).
Point being twofold: ('Fold'. Get it? .)
The EM-drive explanations so far are incomplete. And maybe there's a way to consider time as reversible. There are "hidden" variables still. Hidden in the sense that we don't know about them yet. And third, there may be no practical applications of this technology at all.
An analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g., quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevance
Veering briefly from the topic at hand: Reason? Who needs it? When it serves survival, yeah. I warn of the dangers of rampant reason and technology. WRT HSF, deconstructive and reductionistic scientificism holds that elective war trumps HSF. "U.S. Consul in Săo Paulo ... confiscated [Bohm's] passport." Further discussion welcome on the PM channel, particularly if you don't immediately grasp the connection I'm making.
Like I always say:
“It never occurred to me to abandon [my inquiry]. I just continued doing what I wanted to do. It didn’t matter to me whether I would succeed or fail.”
Although it would be nice to get paid...
Finally, I thought Archimedes invented the screw! -
#1704 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 14:15
-
philosophygasm
Not at all sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. As always, assuming the good. ...
First, your retelling of part of the story regarding time's apparent assymetry was very well written. So thank you for that.
Still, many events in the universe are seen as being reversible, particularly on the quantum level.Quote from: MulletronPlace yourself in intergalactic space...
I asked you to show me one particle which is not accelerating, and you can't, because all particles are accelerating somehow...Quote from: MulletronAnyway, all of this is relevant to the emdrive (asymmetric universe inside, asymmetric difference with our universe outside) by virtue of the true origin of inertia.
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement. We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is.
Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken.
If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur. How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one? Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur? Third, does it ever have pragmatic application, since the decimal point you mention (.0000000000000000000000000000???) is so tiny?
The bottom line distillation of the experimental apparatus is simply that they assert that they can convert electrical energy to forward momentum, somehow taking advantage of the Energy-momentum relation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
At the same time, as I've hinted at here and there in this thread, I intuitively hold the view that the old Cartesian model of reality (that there were two interacting kinds of substance - mental and physical)>wasis limited.
Per Bohm, "the whole notion of active information suggests a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter". Which ties into the Akashic records mentioned earlier; part of a unified theory that I'm working on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_orderQuote from: David BohmIn the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).
Point being twofold: ('Fold'. Get it? .)
The EM-drive explanations so far are incomplete. And maybe there's a way to consider time as reversible. There are "hidden" variables still. Hidden in the sense that we don't know about them yet. And third, there may be no practical applications of this technology at all.
An analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g., quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevance
Veering briefly from the topic at hand: Reason? Who needs it? When it serves survival, yeah. I warn of the dangers of rampant reason and technology. WRT HSF, deconstructive and reductionistic scientificism holds that elective war trumps HSF. "U.S. Consul in Săo Paulo ... confiscated [Bohm's] passport." Further discussion welcome on the PM channel, particularly if you don't immediately grasp the connection I'm making.
Like I always say:
“It never occurred to me to abandon [my inquiry]. I just continued doing what I wanted to do. It didn’t matter to me whether I would succeed or fail.”
Although it would be nice to get paid...
Finally, I thought Archimedes invented the screw!
Quoting myself above: "Place yourself in intergalactic space, outside of any dominant gravity well (except the universe itself) you would experience acceleration (very small acceleration) only with respect to the universe at large. "
The algorithm I put together a few pages back is a thought experiment about what NO acceleration would be like. The notion of NO acceleration is immaterial in reality. Just very low accelerations are real. Given the perceived dipole moment of the CMB, there cannot ever be exactly 0 acceleration.
I maintain that the true origin of inertia is time.
You can't separate space from time. You can't separate energy from either space or time. You can't separate information (causality) from any of those.
I also hedge (and I can't back this one up, as much as I would like to; it is over my head) that the most fundamental thing in the universe, what ties mass/energy/conservation together is, information. The whole notion of information as is being key to everything is what got me started on this journey. Thanks to Wolfram and Von Neumann.
Edit: Left out Turing.
Also, .0000000000000000000000000000??? applied to constant acceleration ends up being a lot.
-
#1705 by Ron Stahl on 08 Oct, 2014 14:38
-
Quote
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
Sorry but this is just wrong. Look up any defintion of inertial mass or EEP and you'll find that this is not true. -
#1706 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 14:40
-
Quote
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
Sorry but this is just wrong. Look up any defintion of inertial mass or EEP and you'll find that this is not true.
Okay but that is a question, not a statement. Thanks for the spirited debate. -
#1707 by Rodal on 08 Oct, 2014 15:12
-
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested). -
#1708 by JohnFornaro on 08 Oct, 2014 15:46
-
The algorithm I put together a few pages back is a thought experiment about what NO acceleration would be like.
That's totally fine, in principle.Quote from: MulletronDo objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
And the question here, is fine too, in principle. But you answered the question, and my only objection is that I don't think your answer is correct.Quote from: MulletronEdit: Left out Turing.
One further edit: You also left out the Rig Veda.
One wonders how much science has been discovered and lost over the eons. At least I do, what with all the inquisitions, great leaps forward, blah, blah, blah, that have taken place over the millenia. -
#1709 by JohnFornaro on 08 Oct, 2014 15:47
-
...(see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Whew. [Dbug salute] -
#1710 by Notsosureofit on 08 Oct, 2014 16:04
-
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
His reasoning may be different, but it's the same argument as Shawyer's once the horizon is set at the boundary -
#1711 by aero on 08 Oct, 2014 16:05
-
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though. -
#1712 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 16:11
-
IRT the question on why the dielectric is essential or not. Think of it this way. You have to convert that inertial gradient to linear movement somehow. Emdrive would work without it. It would work MUCH better with it. Now we're back to Abraham-Minkowski again, and the whole field of optics.
-
#1713 by Rodal on 08 Oct, 2014 16:12
-
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry [as opposed to the truncated cones of Shawyer, NASA and the Chinese, which have one flat end larger than the other flat end], so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device. -
#1714 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 16:14
-
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.
The pillbox is NOT perfectly symmetric. Loook harder..... -
#1715 by Rodal on 08 Oct, 2014 16:17
-
As I see it, it is symmetric concerning the photons in the cavity, as relevant to Prof, McCulloch's simplified analysis: the pillbox geometry [as opposed to the truncated cones of Shawyer, NASA and the Chinese, which have one flat end larger than the other flat end].I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.
The pillbox is NOT perfectly symmetric. Loook harder.....
Please instead of just stating "look harder", please point out specifically what is the asymmetry of the pillbox that is relevant to Prof. McCulloch's present simplified analysis.
The present simplified formulation of Prof. McCulloch does not apply to a (pointed) cone, for example. I have pointed out in his blog that the simplified formula would go to infinity for that case, and he completely agreed. Prof. McCulloch stated he was going to think about a simplified formula for a pointed cone. -
#1716 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 16:22
-
As I see it, it is symmetric concerning the photons in the cavity, as relevant to Prof, McCulloch's simplified analysis: the pillbox geometry [as opposed to the truncated cones of Shawyer, NASA and the Chinese, which have one flat end larger than the other flat end].I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.
The pillbox is NOT perfectly symmetric. Loook harder.....
Please instead of just stating "look harder", please point out specifically what is the asymmetry of the pillbox that is relevant to Prof, McCulloch's present simplified analysis.
The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back. -
#1717 by Rodal on 08 Oct, 2014 16:25
-
...The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.
Well, I cannot work mathematically with a description of "The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry", and I doubt that Prof. McCulloch will be able to work out a formula based on that description, but everybody is free to post in his blog, if you think that's enough to work out a quantitative answer
Please give me a geometrical shape with dimensions that you think that the Cannae device has, because to come up with a quantitative answer we need numbers associated with a prescribed geometry
-
#1718 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 16:29
-
Well you have to be able to formalize casimir interactions with 3d cavities. Lots of info out there on that....The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.
Well, I cannot work mathematically with a description of "The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry", and I doubt that Prof. McCulloch will be able to work out a formula based on that description, but everybody is free to post in his blog, if you think that's enough to work out a quantitative answer -
#1719 by Mulletron on 08 Oct, 2014 16:30
-
MIT has a calculator now.
Edit:
I can tell you from all the papers I read on this, casimir interactions are notoriously complex. Not intuitive. When you factor in things like temperature, scattering, and all other variables, you can't arrive at precise intuitive answers. The simple 3d model I came up with was a generalization, based off of loose assumptions I made after reading about casimir interactions inside/outside spheres. Furthered by info I read about casimir and cones. In the context of a real device, my idea would probably need substantial modification.
I posted links to my sources here in this forum.
The math will give you a nose bleed.
