-
#3520 by RanulfC on 04 Dec, 2014 20:36
-
Posting these videos of remote viewing and alien conspiracy junk are simply ad hominem attacks directed to discredit these individuals. The fact is, these men, were (and still are) key players in the advanced propulsion research community and worked in the industry. They contributed to the original original Nasa Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. Their side projects or beliefs in other esoteric phenomena has no bearing on this subject. If they choose to stare at goats, fine, whatever. If they choose to come up with ideas based on eyewitness reports of strange craft doing strange things(Eric Davis video 37:20), so be it. Those little green men
have to obey the same laws of physics we do (tongue in cheek). So it is probably a good idea to throw a critical eye at those reports, and think about the physics that could be behind it. Just in case. 
The underlying science is there to support it. Yes I find it curious that, if you follow these gentlemen's stories down the rabbit hole, they are all in one way or another, connected to some really strange stuff.
As an aside but on THIS subject we need to recall that in the 1950s it was generally assumed that we were going to find out how to control gravity and other "super-science" stuff "any-day-now" to the point where a serious engineer who wrote fiction based his "Advanced Interstellar Spacecraft" on being a "flying saucer" for the simple fact that the one then currently "visting" Earth (it seemed) were obviously using them
http://www.amazon.com/Starship-Through-Space-Lee-Correy/dp/B000H77B62
http://www.rogersrocketships.com/page_view.cfm?id=69
So its not too far fetched to see where belief in some aspects of what is considered "fringe" science can lead to other beliefs and still not effect the basic knowledge and understanding of the individual
We as species and individuals need to understand that we really do NOT fully understand the universe... Yet. But we're getting there slowly but surely
Randy -
#3521 by Stormbringer on 04 Dec, 2014 20:44
-
Sooner or later someone from the fringe will do something that will stick. In the mean time i vote we all load up in cars and go kick John huchinson's (Beep) for being such a sloppy experimentalist and doofus he discovered and lost antigravity and van der wahls force manipulation by not taking notes and remembering how he did it.
-
#3522 by Ron Stahl on 04 Dec, 2014 21:17
-
As an aside but on THIS subject we need to recall that in the 1950s it was generally assumed that we were going to find out how to control gravity and other "super-science" stuff "any-day-now". . .
There was a lot of really interesting physics in the 50's, and in particular, Dennis Sciama's work that Woodward picked back up. There was in fact a kind of "saucer craze" back then when people talked about anti-gravity and flying saucers and really thought we were entering the space age. All that came to a grinding halt when the Condon report came out in 1968, and that entire report was fraudulent, from start to finish. There are several modern books that examine that work, but if you want to point to a specific act by USG toward what is often called a conspiracy, then the Condon report is certainly the smoking gun. It is one, enormous lie that fomented social change and altered the attitude of the American people for 3 decades.
IIRC, there's an excellent, objective, balanced view of Condon here:
http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307717089
-
#3523 by aero on 05 Dec, 2014 01:04
-
A request -
I've been looking for dielectric model parameters for the copper of the cavity with no luck. Lots of information on higher frequency behavior. The data I need is probably available under key search words that I am not aware of. I need gamma and sigma, or measurement data from which to calculate them over a frequency centered at 2 GHz and one data point at DC.
frequency, gamma, sigma
0 ? 5.9595E+7
1 GHz ? ?
1.7 GHz ? ?
2.3 GHz ? ?
3 GHz ? ?
Those 9 values or a data source where I can find them would solve my problem modeling the copper cavity.
Your help will be appreciated. -
#3524 by ThinkerX on 05 Dec, 2014 01:46
-
Quote
And FYI, nearly everyone in the intelligence community that has anything whatsoever to do with energy and propulsion physics, believes just as Eric Davis believes--that we really did recover something amazing at Roswell. And these guys don't believe this stuff because they're quixotic, or delusional or having hallucinations. They believe it based on fact. So be careful what you say about them. Painting them as whackos is really just a USG propaganda thing. I was not myself a believer in any sense, until Kit, who is a senior officer at CIA who manned the desk for ten years looking into this stuff; challenged me to use my critical thinking skills as a philosopher and look carefully at the evidence. I did that, and became a "believer" in UFO's too. I doubt anyone can look at the evidence objectively, and not come to the conviction that UFO's are indeed visiting spacecraft. And despite the official policy of the US armed forces, EVERYONE involved believes in UFO's. Everyone. Half the guys involved claim to have seen the craft, including Hal Puthoff. According to Kit though, no one really understands how they work, and that's because they're trying to apply ZPF theory to them when they ought to be applying M-E theory to them. They're AC propulsion systems, so it ought to be obvious this is M-E, not ZPF.
Years ago, I used to be very interested in UFO's. Read piles of books on the topic, with authors ranging from vehement skeptics proclaiming all such phenomena to be delusion or otherwise explainable to wide eyed true believers whose rants made them sound like escapees from an asylum. I eventually decided there were too many giant ego's among the investigating factions, each determined to put forth their own vision at the expense of actual, credible investigation. Said ego-cases ranged from arch-skeptics to true believers. Those who attempted anything resembling an unbiased, serious investigation promptly got denounced by the other factions.
One of the few who did impress me with at least an attempt at scientific investigation was Paul Hill. I found his 'Unconventional Flying Objects' to be both fascinating and incomprehensible (maybe Mulletron or Fornaro or Rodal could make something of the equations, as they may be relevant here).
-
#3525 by Mulletron on 05 Dec, 2014 02:50
-
Just in case any folks still aren't convinced, here's old news of actual experimental observations of repulsive forces and dynamical Casimir effects. You can follow the trail right to the papers.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16374-repulsive-quantum-effect-finally-measured.html#.VIEfPsnXV8G
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/full/nature07610.html
http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html#nRlv
http://phys.org/news/2011-12-physicists-darkness-breakthrough-discovery.html#nRlv
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-particles-illuminate-vacuum.html#nRlv
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/11/4234.abstract
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
Utilizing the properties of the QV for propulsion is no longer a theoretical problem. It is an engineering problem. The "anomalous thrust...." devices were likely the "Chicago Pile" of what is to come.
Bonus material from the real interaction side of matter:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6617.pdf
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.230402
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys596/fa2011/StudentWork/team9_final.pdf
-
#3526 by Stormbringer on 05 Dec, 2014 04:05
-
you guys are confusing me.
-
#3527 by ThinkerX on 05 Dec, 2014 07:02
-
Quote
you guys are confusing me.
Welcome to the club. But as my posts make clear, I live in a world of confusion.
That said...
Mulletron seems to be auditioning to join the Eagleworks team...or found a competing operation, with the QV approach.
Rodal is skeptical of Mulletrons approach, and some of his sources.
Ron is less skeptical of Mulletrons sources, but thinks Mulletron is wasting his time, instead promoting Woodward and Mach.
Aero and another poster are running, or attempting to run mathematical models about...energy reactions...inside conical cavities, and whether those energy reactions can produce net thrust. If the answer is net thrust is possible, and Mulletron somehow validates this, then its time to start rewriting the physics textbooks. Pesky outdated laws of thermodynamics anyhow:)
And John Fornaro...is John Fornaro...
-
#3528 by Mulletron on 05 Dec, 2014 08:50
-
Quote
you guys are confusing me.
and Mulletron somehow validates this.....
Well I'm no authority to validate anything. I'm here to investigate the facts behind the "anomalous thrust...." paper. I spent a lot of time researching the QV approach that Dr. White says he believes is behind the measured thrust. I arrived at a different mechanism than he did, but the underlying QV approach I have found merit in, and piles of experimental evidence to support the reality that the QV approach is the way forward. I independently arrived at the same conclusions of people who I thought were probably cranks, like Dr. Puthoff for example, and apart from his views on gravity, which I'm agnostic on, I think he was otherwise correct. I'm waiting to see what Aegis has to say.
My mission on here is simply to find the truth. IMHO I think the QV approach is the truth and it has a lot of room to grow and ways to be exploited for good. There is certainly tons more to learn about its nature.
I'm aggravated by the outright denial of information related to the reality of the QV approach, given the sheer volume of information provided supporting it. Literally everything I post here is supported by a paper, and when possible experimental evidence.
The only thing that isn't supported by a paper is the, "the QV is doing the pushing" idea. That is application of theory and admittedly not even close to being well developed.
It would be nice to get everybody on the same page, so we could pool resources and collaborate on a single goal, and I am trying to achieve this by providing overwhelming evidence that this is a real possibility. While being very careful to not fall victim to confirmation bias.
In the end it doesn't matter if I'm right. I hope equally that Ron Stahl is right. The result is equally sweet. In the end, there is no stopping the truth. If the replications keep happening, we'll have our hover cars and starships in due time.
Bonus material:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0914
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/15/7/073011/pdf/1367-2630_15_7_073011.pdf
-
#3529 by momerathe on 05 Dec, 2014 12:07
-
Just in case any folks still aren't convinced, here's old news of actual experimental observations of repulsive forces and dynamical Casimir effects. You can follow the trail right to the papers.
[...]
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
Utilizing the properties of the QV for propulsion is no longer a theoretical problem. It is an engineering problem.
The existence of the quantum vacuum is not in doubt; nor the casimir force; not the dynamical Casimir effect.
None of these things enable the use of the quantum vacuum for propulsion, without an extension to quantum field theory as it is currently understood. So yes, it very much is still a theoretical problem. -
#3530 by Ron Stahl on 05 Dec, 2014 13:29
-
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
I'm sorry but this is just not true. As explained in detail in Woodward's book, QV is not the only explanation for the Casimir Effect. ZPF and QVF adherents often misrepresent this issue, by claiming the observed data on Casimir Effect is proof that QV exists, but real physicists know this is not true. The classical explanation for Casimir does not require QVF. That is merely ONE interpretation. It is ONE explanation and it is not the one most physicists hold.
You have been scammed.
"Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, corresponds to the alpha → infinity limit," and that "The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates."[17]"
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158v1.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Relativistic_van_der_Waals_force
It's interesting that with the dozens of references Davis and Millis make to Casimir in their book, they never reference this fact or paper. It's not as if they don't know about it. They do. They just don't tell the reader. Likewise it is interesting how Millis repeatedly misrepresents Woodward and Mach in his portions of the book. For instance, stating that Mach's Principle implies an absolute frame of reference (pg.135), when it does not. He supplies an endnote claiming to support his offhand comment and the reference is to an enormous anthology (Barbour and Pfister) that says anything but this, and he gives no page reference.
This is the kind of nonsense the ZPFers dabble in every day. That's how you have been scammed. It's all just a big scam and this has been going on now for 20 years.
-
#3531 by Mulletron on 06 Dec, 2014 00:31
-
Just in case any folks still aren't convinced, here's old news of actual experimental observations of repulsive forces and dynamical Casimir effects. You can follow the trail right to the papers.
[...]
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
Utilizing the properties of the QV for propulsion is no longer a theoretical problem. It is an engineering problem.
The existence of the quantum vacuum is not in doubt; nor the casimir force; not the dynamical Casimir effect.
None of these things enable the use of the quantum vacuum for propulsion, without an extension to quantum field theory as it is currently understood. So yes, it very much is still a theoretical problem.
No new field theory is needed. Just focused application of existing theory. All the theoretical work has already been done. It hasn't been brought under the same roof until now, and seemingly by accident.
The key enablers of QV propulsion in this context are:
1) Asymmetric casimir cavity, which is also operated as an RF resonant cavity.
2) A dielectric material which interacts both with the QV and the RF.
Basically a dielectric in an asymmetric vacuum and RF environment. Be it a resonant cavity on one side of the dielectric slug and open air on the other (Cannae), or a dielectric fully enclosed in an asymmetric resonant cavity (Shawyer).
Take a sealed casimir cavity. By virtue of being sealed, it is also a resonant cavity. Only a finite number of resonant modes can exist within. The walls of this cavity are not parallel. This means that you have a force gradient from large to small end. Not equal like with parallel plates. A radiation pressure differential. A difference of potential. The potential to do work. This is on the vacuum side of the interaction.
Next is the Shawyer approach, with uneven radiation pressure inside the cavity. Another force gradient. Another difference of potential. The potential to do work. This is the RF side of the interaction.
Either of the above happening alone achieves nothing. Movement/thrust would be tantamount to pushing your car from the inside.
Place inside the cavity a dielectric, or something better. The QV is known to interact with matter (vast amounts of evidence posted). RF is known to also interact with matter(vast amounts of evidence posted). This competing interplay of forces on the atoms of the dielectric, IMHO results in a biased random walk of the atoms comprising the dielectric; all atoms at once working together. This at the most fundamental level boils down to a simple momentum vector diagram. All this happening inside the asymmetric resonant cavity is the source of the thrust.
I am keenly aware that these are just words until it is shown exhaustively mathematically. I arrived at these ideas by reading a LOT of scattered material and a lot of preoccupied sleepless nights. I have arrived at this based off of very loose back of the envelope math. Given that the actual value of vacuum energy is a point of controversy and thus doesn't help me much. It is somewhere between extremely large or extremely small. Either way, I know there is vacuum energy difference in potential from the top to the bottom of the cavity and those relative differences are all that matter. From there, after mathematical conversion to momentum, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that the competing vacuum and RF momentum contributions to the dielectric aren't exactly equal. So something has to budge. Also being that we're dealing with an asymmetric resonant cavity, there is a definite sign to the biased random walk, due to the anisotropy of the RF environment inside the cavity.
Or I am just flat wrong.....
The underlying concepts; Casimir effect, vacuum polarization, zitterbewegung predate WWII. All of which are tested and accepted.
The only thing left is for more replications to happen, and IF they succeed, a salient theory of operation using the established concepts described above needs to be formalized.
This all boils down to what you can do with matter and light when placed within a Casimir cavity.
No new field theory is required. Just new theory of application.
Side note:
If this thing by some miracle also ends up being antigravity, or modified inertia, then we'll need new theory.
-
#3532 by IslandPlaya on 06 Dec, 2014 00:51
-
It all boils down to what exactly is a Casimir cavity.
Sheets of copper don't qualify. We need a single sheet graphene cavity to understand whats going on.
I say this because bulk copper (or any bulk conductor) is a mess.
Surface effects et al are eliminated.
-
#3533 by Mulletron on 06 Dec, 2014 01:47
-
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
I'm sorry but this is just not true. As explained in detail in Woodward's book, QV is not the only explanation for the Casimir Effect. ZPF and QVF adherents often misrepresent this issue, by claiming the observed data on Casimir Effect is proof that QV exists, but real physicists know this is not true. The classical explanation for Casimir does not require QVF. That is merely ONE interpretation. It is ONE explanation and it is not the one most physicists hold.
You have been scammed.
"Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, corresponds to the alpha → infinity limit," and that "The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates."[17]"
Ok well first thing, VDW forces are the net effect of many forces. You are confusing VDW and Casimir forces. Vacuum forces are one component to VDW forces. After controls are put in place (conducting parallel plates), Casimir forces can be measured independently. You are trying to controvert research that has been ongoing since the 1940s.
The other thing is that, the lines of reasoning and authors you are quoting are failing at using the chicken vs the egg approach and fail to take into account the most fundamental foundation of all matter, forces and things, which is the reference from which all phenomena spring forward, the reference or ground state. You can't have anything, nothing nada, zilch, without something else to compare it to. The QV is that reference. It is the most fundamental thing (Wolfram would say information is more fundamental). Be it sits at a zillion or zero, it is the reference. -
#3534 by Mulletron on 06 Dec, 2014 02:37
-
It makes folks feel good to know they have all the answers, which leads to hubris. But in reality, we know very little.The hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive.
The problem is that, to paraphrase Nima Arkani-Hamed, it's really hard to come up with something that's not obviously wrong.
Regardless of whether it works or not, many of the explanations* that have been put forward, like Shawyer's original EM Drive paper, are just nonsense. And I'm not talking about whether they disagree with known physics, people are pretty relaxed about that, rather the authors don't even understand the physical theories that they're employing to base their claims on. That's what gets peoples' backs up.
* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.QuoteOften in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves.
really? funding conspiracy? that's where you're going with this?
Yes like spending billions and building careers searching out dark matter/dark energy/string theory, instead of checking their predispositions and math. The easy road.QuoteBesides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.
that's.. not how it works.
I mean; there are plenty of brickbats you could throw at theoretical physics with great justification (the unfalsifiability of string theory, for example), but you've picked a really bad one here.
Well Hawking has changed his mind on black holes so many times it has become clear that this is a work in progress. You function as if we have them figured out.
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
I'm in blue.
-
#3535 by Mulletron on 06 Dec, 2014 03:04
-
It all boils down to what exactly is a better Casimir cavity.
Sheets of copper don't qualify. But is a start. We need a single sheet graphene cavity to understand whats going on.
I say this because bulk copper (or any bulk conductor) is a mess.
Surface effects et al are eliminated.
I'm in red above. The old parallel plate experiments were called Casimir cavities in the various literature I've encountered. I disagree with calling parallel plates cavities because they're not fully enclosed. Remembered the slashdot article.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/22/1538210/physicists-say-graphene-could-create-mass
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421285/mass-can-be-created-inside-graphene-say-physicists/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3437
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/dynamical-mass-generation-via-space.html
Oh graphene, is there anything you can't do? -
#3536 by IslandPlaya on 06 Dec, 2014 03:10
-
I don't have any truck with the Casimir effect as I shall explain shortly..
Think thin films... ie graphene
ME is the only game in town for this thread...
-
#3537 by IslandPlaya on 06 Dec, 2014 03:20
-
Imagine an infinite sheet of graphene.
Another sheet would find it impossible to lie on top. Casimir force would prevent it.
This is not observed. -
#3538 by IslandPlaya on 06 Dec, 2014 03:29
-
Van der Waals forces... Can anyone explain them to me?
-
#3539 by 93143 on 06 Dec, 2014 05:38
have to obey the same laws of physics we do (tongue in cheek). So it is probably a good idea to throw a critical eye at those reports, and think about the physics that could be behind it. Just in case. 
The underlying science is there to support it. Yes I find it curious that, if you follow these gentlemen's stories down the rabbit hole, they are all in one way or another, connected to some really strange stuff. 