-
#3600 by IslandPlaya on 08 Dec, 2014 18:18
-
I guess it is up to us to perform experiments.
It will only give us rough data points but so what!
-
#3601 by Ron Stahl on 08 Dec, 2014 19:30
-
Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter are
He didn't change anything. I thought you had the book?
determined by the global matter distribution in the universe.
Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all. -
#3602 by Rodal on 08 Dec, 2014 19:43
-
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.
which also deteriorates or damp[ens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
Besides, Mull's outright dismissal of any possible description of the quantum vacuum as a superfluid has no basis in physics as discussed at major institutions, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory. None other than the great Paul Dirac inspired this approach.
As to scale, I already addressed that, and I'm content with the fact that none other than the great Feynman suggested quantized vortex lines:
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_turbulence (actually quantum turbulence is much simpler to model than classical turbulence in fluids like water)
Winterberg proposed that the quantum vacuum is a kind of superfluid plasma compound of positive and negative Planck masses, called a Planck mass plasma. Here is a 2013 paper by him: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-381/aflb381m775.pdf where he proposes the following experimental verification:Quote from: WinterbergIn performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened between the two
entangled particles, keeping their quantum mechanical phases the same.
Now suppose that intense laser light is projected on that part of the screen
where one of the entangled particles is expected to emerge and be measured.
Under these conditions a laser signal might be seen on the other screen
where the other entangled particle is expected to emerge, with the laser signal
having passed through the wormhole made by the entangled particles.
How do electromagnetic waves, photons etc. move through space, where there is believed to be nothing? Several prominent scientists have suggested and continue to suggest that it is in fact a superfluid. But you, Fornaro, are allowed to called it the aether.
-
#3603 by Notsosureofit on 08 Dec, 2014 20:53
-
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.
which also deteriorates or damp[ens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
I would say dissipates, but aether one will do for the local description. -
#3604 by Ron Stahl on 08 Dec, 2014 21:14
-
Thank you for the answer, but as expected in the question I don't find it satisfying. I won't read the book, main reason being I feel I should study complete and solid GR course first. . .
The book is written specifically for engineers. I'm sure you can understand what's in there. The equations are all there too, but they're mostly endnoted and on those occasions they are in the text, the text makes perfect sense without them. Though you are investing a little trust that the equations are correct, the fact they're peer reviewed for 20 years with no objections, and that the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.Quote"Inertia manipulation" would be just a particular configuration of accelerations and energy swapping between different forms. . .
Not at all. Mass fluctuations are actually radiation reactions that suffer a time delay. The best way to visualize it is that there is a "gravinertial flux" formed by the gravity of the universe, that produces inertia, and that this flux can be made to flow in and out of matter under specific conditions. The energy in the bonds is necessary, because it is the change in those energies combined with acceleration that gives rise to the fluctuation.QuoteI can understand such Machian physics could predict such inertia manipulation, different from what SR would predict, but not how SR would fail to predict anything at all !
Like GR, SR is not a theory of inertia. You might just as well object that we don't find this in Bernoulli's Principle. It does not pertain.QuoteI mean, just show ME thruster design (and its internal power dynamics...) to a good physicist who don't know what it's supposed to do, you really think he/she will scratch head for a few days and conclude "how strange, we need an extended theory of inertia to predict how it will behave, classical frameworks have nothing to tell !" Really ?
Certainly not. Without understanding the physics behind the device, no one would have any idea what it is supposed to do, nor why.QuoteCan't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ?
Yes. Woodward did the M-E experiment back in 2008-9 where he fluctuated the mass of a ceramic on a "Rotator" but did not rectify the fluctuation into useful force. He merely detected the fluctuation and noted it was as predicted, at twice the frequency of the power into the device. Years before that he measured the time averaged loss of mass in one of the original design thrusters as predicted by theory, on his modified U-80 load cell. There isn't one experiment that's been done. There are half a dozen such experiments.
The important thing that hasn't been done so far as I'm concerned, is a high quality thruster experiment done at sufficient frequency that we see commercial grade thrusts. IMHO, what is needed now is a commercial thruster with thrust to mass, thrust to power and temperature bandwidth figures of merit that makes the device useful and can for example be run continuously and have its thrust reversed easily on command by altering the phase angle between the 1w and 2w components of the drive signal. There's been quite enough useless proof of science. If that's what you really want is proof of science, read the book. That's what the second third of the book is all about. And really if that's what you are all about asking, what excuse could you possibly have to not go get the answers yourself?QuoteThe question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ?
In some ways the thruster is the most simple. It adds to the Rotator experiment the requirement to oscillate at 2 frequencies instead of just one, and to measure reliably some very small thrusts, but the Rotator has different issues. While such an experiment removes the thrust measurement requirement, it adds things like spinning the caps at several hundred gees without suffering explosive decomposition, and feeding the power through a set of expensive slip rings. It's a toss up which is the simpler. My contention before the Rotator tests was that people would not care what he predicted and found, because he was not demonstrating a useful technology, but rather just a proof of science. I think that was an accurate prediction on my part. People don't care about stuff that isn't useful, and most people are far too skeptical to be convinced by mere proof of science. Take for example the folks here--they don't want to look at the data, so what is the point in proof of science? Take note too of NASA's official word on the subject through their point man in propulsion investigations, Dr. Dennis Bushnell. According to Dennis, NASA does not have the physicists to vet the theory properly (like us here) so what he wants to see is higher thrust. NASA even hired a team from The Aerospace Company to do an investigation, but they also do not have the proper physicists to do the field theory, so all they did was another warmed over engineering look. Given one cannot grapple directly with theory, the only thing left is observation and I think the observations would weigh a lot more, were they of a useful thrust. That means we need a commercial thruster. We could do this on far less money than was thrown away on the Shawyer resonator in the UK or the recent tests at Eagleworks, none of which explain themselves with plausible theory. The problem is, this industry gets treated as a good old boys club, and the boys in the club, like Sonny, get the funds. It doesn't matter they can't explain themselves satisfactorily.
We need useful thrust. -
#3605 by Rodal on 08 Dec, 2014 21:40
-
(bold added for emphasis)
... the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.
Motivated by what you just wrote, I went looking into Google for a review of this book in a physics or scientific journal. I did not find such a review, but if you know of a link to a review of this book in a physics or scientific journal, I would appreciate it.
Curiously though, what I just found is that by Googling"Making Starships and Stargates", the number 4th entry in Google (directly above the youtube video of Woodward) is what appears to be the whole book posted by an organization (from Iran or an Arabic country ? -the language appears Arabic or Iranian, I don't know) that posted this whole book (296 pages) in a pdf format.
QUESTION: Is that pdf really of the 296 pages long book you are referring to?
Please check it, and if indeed if it is a pdf of Woodward's book, you (since you appear to have direct access to Woodward) may want to notify Woodward and/or Springer to approach Google as an author or copyright owner to tell Google to take this link out as a violation of the author's copyright -
#3606 by Ron Stahl on 08 Dec, 2014 22:28
-
Thanks much for that. I shot Jim and Heidi notes about the link. Yes, that's the book.
Concerning reviews, last I talked with Jim was about 7 months ago, and at that time he already had about a dozen positive reviews and no negative ones. I think he was collecting them for the second edition. I am not aware of anyplace they're posted online, but I know some big names whom should stay anonymous for now have read the book with great interest.
I can tell you, just after he submitted it to the publisher, he started to have second thoughts because he expected to be lambasted by the academic community and so far as I'm aware, there just has not been that sort of reaction. I can tell you one positive response (because it was posted to Jim's general reading list) was from Carver Mead from MIT, who I think is endorsing the work to some degree. He actually called Jim and asked to meet with him. So the response has been pretty excellent I'd say. -
#3607 by frobnicat on 08 Dec, 2014 23:53
-
Mmm, in this context I grant you it looks like it's devoid of the theoretical enormities of Shawyer, White... but this is precisely because of that I'd like to have a firmer grasp on the relevant admitted theory first, to make an informed lecture. If this sounds like a poor excuse (it is), again, I would understand you gave up in answering my posts. Meanwhile I do enjoy talking with someone who read it and can interactively respond to the questions of a sceptic engineer passerby. Take it as an exercise to find the right words to convince a typical reluctant science aware community member of the value of those ideas, which are tremendous if correct.Thank you for the answer, but as expected in the question I don't find it satisfying. I won't read the book, main reason being I feel I should study complete and solid GR course first. . .
The book is written specifically for engineers. I'm sure you can understand what's in there. The equations are all there too, but they're mostly endnoted and on those occasions they are in the text, the text makes perfect sense without them. Though you are investing a little trust that the equations are correct, the fact they're peer reviewed for 20 years with no objections, and that the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.
All right, at some point I will read it.QuoteQuote"Inertia manipulation" would be just a particular configuration of accelerations and energy swapping between different forms. . .
Not at all. Mass fluctuations are actually radiation reactions that suffer a time delay. The best way to visualize it is that there is a "gravinertial flux" formed by the gravity of the universe, that produces inertia, and that this flux can be made to flow in and out of matter under specific conditions. The energy in the bonds is necessary, because it is the change in those energies combined with acceleration that gives rise to the fluctuation.
Ok, here we are. Great you take time and effort to understand what I'm not understanding. I will try to refine what is still not entering my skull : in what those conditions are so specific that they can't be stated GR wise ? From SR there is nothing magic with energy in bonds, this is just energy, I tried to illustrate that with the battery example. Cold charged battery, hot depleted battery, same energy, same mass equivalence, no mass fluctuation. "The energy in the bonds is necessary, because it is the change in those energies..." so there is change in chemical bonds energy, but that does not equate to change in energy density in the bulk, this is just a different form of energy (from chemical to kinetic and reverse, millions times a second). There is no net output or input flow of energy in such harmonic motion (putting aside the decay to thermal agitation). SR is not saying that one form of energy is heavier than another form in such closed system, it does say that it is the same. GR might say that if a closed system has transformation in energy forms that imply fast velocities of close ultradense objects then it could emit significant gravity waves, it would no longer be closed in that sense, and could "thrust" in given direction but probably at the expense of more than 3E8 Watts per Newton I guess.
Visualizing a "gravinertial flux" won't help. I guess it is backed by equations of state in Woodward's book (?). "...that this flux can be made to flow in and out of matter under specific conditions" sounds to me like it would transfer all the "gains" that could be made in terms of "push heavy pull light" from one part of a closed system to another part of the same closed system, with no net thrust overall. If this flux gets outside, we have an open system, and SR states that the price is equal or more than 3E8 Watts per Newton.
Time delays seem irrelevant for transformation from chemical bonds energy to kinetic energy back and forth in a bulk, again my battery example (please comment the battery thing : right ? wrong ? irrelevant ? Why irrelevant since it's about conversion from chemical bond energies to kinetic energies in a bulk ?)QuoteQuoteI can understand such Machian physics could predict such inertia manipulation, different from what SR would predict, but not how SR would fail to predict anything at all !
Like GR, SR is not a theory of inertia. You might just as well object that we don't find this in Bernoulli's Principle. It does not pertain.
Er, mmm, it (SR+GR) might not explain the origin of mass as deriving from more fundamental "entities", but it does speak a little bit about inertia, if anything else, from an effective point of view, that is it allows a number of predictions about how something will accelerate or not (relative to inertial frame, say, in deep flat space) given what it does with its mass_energy content (throwing some of it or not). Bernoulli, with all due respect, was not working on a fundamental (effective) theory of dynamics, unlike GR or Newtonian dynamics.Quote
Certainly not what ? I'm not asking if such mainstream scientists could tell what it is supposed to do, I'm asking if they could give a prediction of what it will do from admitted frameworks (no net thrust, at least not more than power/c would be my prediction, but I'm not a top notch senior physicist) or meet inconsistencies in the equations or interpretation so specific that they know they have reached the limits of usual frameworks.QuoteI mean, just show ME thruster design (and its internal power dynamics...) to a good physicist who don't know what it's supposed to do, you really think he/she will scratch head for a few days and conclude "how strange, we need an extended theory of inertia to predict how it will behave, classical frameworks have nothing to tell !" Really ?
Certainly not. Without understanding the physics behind the device, no one would have any idea what it is supposed to do, nor why.
Sorry if this sounds rude but : you are trying to sell a Machian physic as fully compatible with GR, only extending it (saying the same things in the same configurations, only being able to tell more things, like you could say that Newtonian dynamics is fully compatible with Bernoulli's principle) while it appears to your average engineer that this Machian physic is not compatible with SR, it predicts things in a situation where SR clearly predicts also, and a different result. This would be alright, experiment then can tell apart one from the other. Like experiment could tell apart Newtonian from SR, two incompatible theories.
But all this "Mach compatible with SR" makes no sense, at least the way you explain it excuse me, no matter the number of references you throw at it. If such Mach theory is compatible with SR, it will predict the same thing as SR in the same situation where SR does predict. And SR does predict "closed system in deep space => no departure from inertial trajectory", so SR compatible Mach theory should say the same, me think.QuoteQuoteCan't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ?
Yes. Woodward did the M-E experiment back in 2008-9 where he fluctuated the mass of a ceramic on a "Rotator' but did not rectify the fluctuation into useful force. He merely measured the fluctuation and noted it was as expected, at twice the frequency of the power into the device. Years before that he measured the time averaged loss of mass in one of the original design thruster as predicted by theory, on his modified U-80 load cell. There isn't one experiment that's been done. There are half a dozen such experiments.
The important thing that hasn't been done so far as I'm concerned, is a high quality thruster experiment done at sufficient frequency that we see commercial grade thrusts. IMHO, what is needed now is a commercial thruster with thrust to mass, thrust to power and temperature bandwidth figures of merit that makes the device useful and can for example be run continuously and have its thrust revered easily on command by altering the phase angle between the 1w and 2w components of the drive signal. There's been quite enough useless proof of science. If that's what you really want is proof of science, read the book. That's what the second third of the book is all about. And really if that's what you are all about asking, what excuse could you possibly have to not go get the answer yourself?QuoteThe question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ? Someone send me a life jacket please.
In some ways the thruster is the most simple. It adds to the Rotator experiment the requirement to oscillate at 2 frequencies instead of just one, and to measure reliably some very small thrusts, but the Rotator has different issues. While such an experiment removes the thrust measurement requirement, it adds things like spinning the caps at several hundred gees without suffering explosive decomposition, and feeding the power through a set of expensive slip rings. It's a toss up which is the "simpler". My contention before the Rotator tests was that people would not care what he predicted and found, because he was not demonstrating a useful technology, but rather just a proof of science. I think that was an accurate prediction on my part. People don't care about stuff that isn't useful, and most people are far too skeptical to be convinced by mere proof of science. Take for example the folks here--they don't want to look at the data, so what is the point in proof of science?
We need useful thrust.
Mmm, folks here have varying motivations and knowledge and skills. But the scientific world is huge and avid of proof of beyond standard frameworks, especially if they can be put at test inside a small lab. I worked in a lab (different topic) and I know reality of science is far from idealisations. But, for your average engineer knowing scientists, this is still beyond belief that a well put, reproducible proof of science, below 1000k$ could remain so widely ignored as not spreading exponentially. This would be as mysterious as Fermi paradox. Obviously your average engineer with a scope on advanced concepts would be as well convinced by 10 major labs reproducing a "useless" proof of new science than by one useful tech demo in a garage. Folks want to look at data from different sources. Not a dozen experiment from the same team, but the same experiment (and same consistent results) from a dozen team. Then people would care. Even if you levitated an elephant in front of an audience of 1000s at burning man festival, this one spectacular demo would lend less credibility to the tech than spreading a reproducible design of proof of science that barely moves a dust, but does so consistently and beyond doubt. But I'm not in this business, so maybe wrong.
Any online papers about the rotator "proof of science" oriented experiments ? I do care about that...
-
#3608 by 93143 on 09 Dec, 2014 01:38
-
Cold charged battery, hot depleted battery, same energy, same mass equivalence, no mass fluctuation.
As I understand it, energy is actually flowing in and out of the capacitor, and it is the capacitor, not the whole local system, that undergoes the precisely synchronized accelerations.QuoteIf this flux gets outside, we have an open system, and SR states that the price is equal or more than 3E8 Watts per Newton.
The Mach effect involves the whole universe being active. The thruster isn't just sending energy out at the speed of light; it's also receiving it from everything inside its cosmic horizon. So the 3e8 W/N limit doesn't apply, any more than a laser sail vehicle would have to generate all the power for the drive beam, rather than for just the little communications laser that allows it to lock on.QuoteTime delays seem irrelevant for transformation from chemical bonds energy to kinetic energy back and forth in a bulk, again my battery example (please comment the battery thing : right ? wrong ? irrelevant ? Why irrelevant since it's about conversion from chemical bond energies to kinetic energies in a bulk ?)
The time delay in question is the time required to communicate with the distant matter. The result is that it is the far-future distant universe that is being interacted with. (This is where Wheeler-Feynman reaction radiation and Cramer's transactional interpretation of QM are brought in.)
Note that this interaction is implicit, not explicit, in the original derivation, since AIUI the derivation is based on local gravitational potential. I don't think advanced waves are necessarily inherent in the concept, but that's how it's currently described, and it certainly solves a lot of problems.QuoteCertainly not what ? I'm not asking if such mainstream scientists could tell what it is supposed to do, I'm asking if they could give a prediction of what it will do from admitted frameworks (no net thrust, at least not more than power/c would be my prediction, but I'm not a top notch senior physicist) or meet inconsistencies in the equations or interpretation so specific that they know they have reached the limits of usual frameworks.
Can a physicist predict the viscosity of an emulsion of two multicomponent liquids, from first principles?
Of course not. It's far too complicated. I wouldn't even expect a correct qualitative description from someone who had never thought about it before.
Heck, if we're discussing Bernoulli and his Principle, let's not forget that it's a good example of how fluid dynamicists of that era completely missed the whole concept of viscosity, or at least all of its practical implications. Engineers (and anyone who had ever tried to pour molasses) decided the mathemagicians' results were a load of trash and developed the purely experimental science of hydraulics, and viscosity was the key to reuniting them.
In this case, it is claimed that GR has an implication most physicists (not all) have missed, and in our universe it translates under ordinary circumstances into something they have tended to take for granted without explanation: inertia. The subtleties of how it behaves under certain fairly extreme and very specific circumstances cannot be expected to be obvious to someone who has not understood the nature of the phenomenon in the first place.Quoteyou are trying to sell a Machian physic as fully compatible with GR
No. Unless I'm much mistaken, the claim is that in the context of an FRW cosmology, Machian inertia is derivable from GR. Full stop. Mach's principle is not an addition to the physics that enables you to do this; it's an idea that you follow in order to discover this in the original physics.
GR is very complicated and has not been thoroughly explored, and this situation is not helped by the widespread perception that QM has rendered it obsolete.QuoteAnd SR does predict "closed system in deep space => no departure from inertial trajectory", so SR compatible Mach theory should say the same, me think.
The whole point is that the thruster is not a closed system. And SR is not general enough to predict this, though if it is given the fact as input it will produce correct results within its sphere of competence. -
#3609 by Mulletron on 09 Dec, 2014 08:47
-
That random walk doesn't seem to go anywhere
Now put that scenario in the video in the Shawyer cavity.
Gazakly. Which gets back to asking again what a "medium with intrinsic momentum" means.
Who put "medium with intrinsic momentum" out there? Wasn't me. It was:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1299536#msg1299536
I want to be clear, I will only defend statements made by me. Not what other people think I think, or interpret from what I say. Just what I say.
I am not going to reinterpret the QV or try and bring back the luminiferous aether or treat it as a wind or fluid and contravene over a hundred years of science and SR. The QV is what it is, regardless if it is understood or not.
It is comforting to think of things like this as an aether or wind, from our human tendencies to compare things to our usual everyday experience.
The term aether has a lot of negative connotations and implies opposition to established science. It implies a medium that is necessary for light to propagate. Just because space is filled with a Dirac sea of particles, doesn't mean that this is a necessary medium required for light or anything else to propagate.
Put very nicely here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
So call it an aether if you like. I won't. It is taboo and will definitely make people roll their eyes and not take what you're saying seriously.
My actual words are, "....these fluctuations don't have a defined or net momentum." There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry. I based that off of many things such as this: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html
My entire reading list is on the google drive in the bookmarks doc.
In plain English for clarity, If you're getting blasted from all sides equally, there is no momentum transfer.
-
#3610 by Mulletron on 09 Dec, 2014 09:38
-
Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter are
He didn't change anything. I thought you had the book?
determined by the global matter distribution in the universe.
Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all. Is that moving the goal post after WMAP found things like the Eridanus Supervoid, and the Giant Void and other lumps, bumps and holes?
Page 37, 42, 53...54. He is not giving any credance to the non uniform distribution of matter in the universe and is instead diverting over to the flatness of spacetime at large scales (and it isn't perfectly flat, yet inertia is not biased. This flatness isn't even the product of JUST the matter in the universe, also the vacuum.QuoteSince we don't have a proposed mechanism for dark energy, M-E seems to be the only viable candidate, but that is not the same as providing for falsification.
Citation needed. What about the cosmological constant problem? What about vacuum energy?
Ron, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town. See page 5 here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.1063.pdf There are many ideas out there which could get us to the stars.
Don't come here and try to act as if it is, by accusing others like Eagleworks of falsifying data, picking on Dr. McCulloch, and accusing me of misleading people. I'd prefer to just let you be and not draw unwanted critical attention to M-E. For example, if you google "gravinertial flux" you'll quickly see that isn't a real thing.
This thread isn't an opportunity to threadjack and advertise a book. It is about advanced propulsion. EMdrive developments.... Not Woodward's book or bust. -
#3611 by Mulletron on 09 Dec, 2014 10:37
-
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.
...which also deteriorates or dampens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
1) Besides, Mull's outright dismissal of any possible description of the quantum vacuum as a superfluid has no basis in physics as discussed at major institutions, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory. None other than the great Paul Dirac inspired this approach.
2) As to scale, I already addressed that, and I'm content with the fact that none other than the great Feynman suggested quantized vortex lines:
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_turbulence (actually quantum turbulence is much simpler to model than classical turbulence in fluids like water)
3) Winterberg proposed that the quantum vacuum is a kind of superfluid plasma compound of positive and negative Planck masses, called a Planck mass plasma. Here is a 2013 paper by him: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-381/aflb381m775.pdf where he proposes the following experimental verification:Quote from: WinterbergIn performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened ...
4) How do electromagnetic waves, photons etc. move through space, where there is believed to be nothing? Several prominent scientists have suggested and continue to suggest that it is in fact a superfluid. But you, Fornaro, are allowed to call it the aether.
4) Many thanks for that.
The aether, as conceived in classical physics leads to several contradictions; in particular, aether having a definite velocity at each space-time point will exhibit a preferred direction.
What can "intrinsic momentum" mean, if it does not include a "preferred direction"?
If the energies and momenta are below the excitation threshold then the superfluid background behaves like the ideal fluid, therefore, the Michelson–Morley-type experiments would observe no drag force from such aether.
Therefore, if it does have a "preferred direction", it wouldn't result in a "drag force" on light. Aether way, cough, guess what it would be called?
I'm just askin' the questions here, 'cause typically, I'm the guy giving the Dbug salute, when I'm not engaged in all those deletable activities I'm apparently fond of photographing and posting.
3) This so-called experimental verification is, well, not benign. "A wormhole would be opened..."? Seriously?
2) As to scale, I point to the submarine graphic you posted earlier. The propellor (EM drive) is but so big geometrically. The "turbulent wake" in either water or the QV is much longer geometrically. That's what I mean by scale.
Perhaps this suggests a different experimental approach. Crank up the power, and don't worry if the mass of your apparatus won't move. Try to detect the "turbulent" "flow" of the QV, in the wake of the EM propagator. Whatever the turbulence might be, it will have to extend thru a piece of ordinary space-time.
1) Interesting. Mulletron?
The superfluid vacuum theory is pretty neat. Seems kinda superfluous though.
-
#3612 by Mulletron on 09 Dec, 2014 11:23
-
Well here's what I think about testing the sail idea. So if the QV is transferring momentum to dielectric by the circumstances I described, by association energy is also being transferred to the dielectric, given that momentum carried by electromagnetic radiation equals its energy divided by the speed of light.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html#c2
I propose that there should also be anomalous heating of the dielectric, which otherwise can't be accounted for. -
#3613 by Rodal on 09 Dec, 2014 13:00
-
...There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry. I based that off of many things such as this: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html
..
In plain English for clarity, If you're getting blasted from all sides equally, there is no momentum transfer.
OK, please let me try to understand your point of view, by using this reference that you used to base your ideas:
1) The reference states:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.htmlThe vacuum state therefore has zero momentum and infinite energy !
(bold added for emphasis)
a) Stating that the vacuum state has infinite energy is not acceptable. When the answer to a problem is infinities (as in this statement) it shows that there is something wrong with the analysis.
The reference addresses this in a footnote as follows:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.htmlZero-point fluctuations are usually regularized by `normal ordering' - a rather ad hoc procedure which involves the substitution ak ak† rightarrow ak† ak in [63]. In curved space-time a single regularization is not enough to rid <Tik> of all its divergences. Three remaining `infinities' must be regularized, leading to the renormalization of additional terms in the one-loop effective Lagrangian for the gravitational field, which, in an FRW universe becomes: curlyLeff = sqrt-g [Lambdainfty + R / 16pi Ginfty + alphainfty R2 + betainfty Rij Rij]. Renormalization of the first term Lambdainfty rightarrow 0 corresponds to normal ordering. The presence of the second term R / 16pi Ginfty, led Sakharo v to postulate that the gravitational field might be `induced' by one-loop quantum effects in a curved background geometry, since one could recover the ordinary Einstein action by renormalizing the `bare' value Ginfty to its observed value: Ginfty rightarrow Gobs [173]. Thus both the cosmological constant Lambda and the gravitational constant G may be induced by quantum effects. The remaining two terms in curlyLeff give rise to vacuum polarization effects and have been extensively discussed in the literature
b) This reference does state that the vacuum state has zero momentum. Please show me where does it state that "There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry." or where does this reference state words to the effect that it is possible to break the symmetry of the vacuum state to transfer momentum
2) Please address the following statement in the reference that you used:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.htmlA central tenet of the general theory of relativity is that the gravitational force couples to all forms of energy through the Einstein equations Gik = (8piG / c4)Tik. Therefore if the vacuum has energy then it also gravitates !
(bold added for emphasis)
In order to correctly understand your thoughts, it would be helpful if you could clarify:
a) how do you address re-normalization: the issue of infinite vacuum energy
b) how do you address the issue that the vacuum energy does not gravitate
c) how do you address the issue of "breaking of symmetry" (no directional momentum of the vacuum) to result in useful propellant-less propulsion of the EM Drive by the vacuum
Thank you -
#3614 by Mulletron on 09 Dec, 2014 13:41
-
That's your beef with them then....There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry. I based that off of many things such as this: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html
..
In plain English for clarity, If you're getting blasted from all sides equally, there is no momentum transfer.
OK, please let me try to understand your point of view, by using this reference that you used to base your ideas:
1) The reference states:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.htmlThe vacuum state therefore has zero momentum and infinite energy !
(bold added for emphasis)
a) Stating that the vacuum state has infinite energy is not acceptable. When the answer to a problem is infinities (as in this statement) it shows that there is something wrong with the analysis.
The reference addresses this in a footnote as follows:QuoteZero-point fluctuations are usually regularized by `normal ordering' - a rather ad hoc procedure which involves the substitution ak ak† rightarrow ak† ak in [63]. In curved space-time a single regularization is not enough to rid <Tik> of all its divergences. Three remaining `infinities' must be regularized, leading to the renormalization of additional terms in the one-loop effective Lagrangian for the gravitational field, which, in an FRW universe becomes: curlyLeff = sqrt-g [Lambdainfty + R / 16pi Ginfty + alphainfty R2 + betainfty Rij Rij]. Renormalization of the first term Lambdainfty rightarrow 0 corresponds to normal ordering. The presence of the second term R / 16pi Ginfty, led Sakharo v to postulate that the gravitational field might be `induced' by one-loop quantum effects in a curved background geometry, since one could recover the ordinary Einstein action by renormalizing the `bare' value Ginfty to its observed value: Ginfty rightarrow Gobs [173]. Thus both the cosmological constant Lambda and the gravitational constant G may be induced by quantum effects. The remaining two terms in curlyLeff give rise to vacuum polarization effects and have been extensively discussed in the literature
Quoteb) This reference does state that the vacuum state has zero momentum. Please show me where does it state that "There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry." or where does this reference state words to the effect that it is possible to break the symmetry of the vacuum state to transfer momentum
You think a link to a lesson on vacuum fluctuations is the answer to everything? The reference was an analysis of vacuum momentum. Not emdrives. The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.
In bold here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1298712#msg1298712
My entire reading list is on the google drive in the bookmarks doc.Quote2) Please address the following statement in the reference that you used:
Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.htmlA central tenet of the general theory of relativity is that the gravitational force couples to all forms of energy through the Einstein equations Gik = (8piG / c4)Tik. Therefore if the vacuum has energy then it also gravitates !
(bold added for emphasis)
Just one of many, this one is easy because you just have to watch and listen, no reading required.
QuoteIt would be helpful if you would clarify:
I'm not on here to solve the cosmological constant problem. But here's some info:
a) how do you address normalization: the infinite vacuum energy
b) how do you address the issue of vacuum energy gravitating
c) how do you address the issue of "breaking of symmetry" (no directional momentum of the vacuum) to result in useful propellant-less propulsion of the EM Drive by the vacuum
a) This is an open question in physics called the vacuum catastrophe. There is research out there that suggests this can be solved:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605418
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364
b) Gravitation doesn't necessarily only have to be negative. See the video above again.
Interesting perspective:
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe (I think this article is a little off though)
c) Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen, and as they note it is a very very smallaccelerationvelocity. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small. The rest of the puzzle is the uneven radiation pressure across the dielectric, as seen inside the Shaywer device, as well as Cannae.QuoteThank you.
Thank you. Hope I answered your questions.
So there are unsolved physics. I'm not here to solve them. Just emdrives.
Bonus material:
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-01-repulsive-gravity-alternative-dark-energy_1.html -
#3615 by Ron Stahl on 09 Dec, 2014 14:03
-
Ron, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town.
Actually, it is. I have already explained this to you. The criteria chosen by Millis, who is an engineer with no training in philosophy of science, bears no resemblance to what makes good science. Millis was a bit of a creative genius when it came to precising what we need to hunt for. Probably the best example of this was in formulating the term "Spacedrive" and noting we need to get past propellant if we're to move out into space. However, the criteria developed by Millis bears no resemblance at all to what makes real science, and those portions of both the BPP project, and his AIAA book with Davis, are horrible prostitutions of the truth. If you want to judge these various theories and models according to the dictates of science, then there are only 2 criteria: are they rational and consistent to what we already know?, and what's the physical evidence? Science is the marriage of reason and observation and all science comes down to these two criteria eventually. Imagining that our propulsion needs will be met by a scheme that violates EEP, GR and conservation is fundamentally irrational, and investing in a scheme with no trustworthy observations despite repeated funding flies in the face of what empirical investigation is all about.
This is not to say there are no other concerns. For example one might prioritize by noting the import of a model as regards its utility. Of course here M-E stands alone as well, because only M-E is telling us how to generate negative mass and thus offer a way for warp and wormhole technology. The point though is, that if you are RATIONAL you need logically consistent theory (both internally and externally), and if you're empirical you then add the "show me" attitude of observation. All these other models and theories FAIL when judged by these two criteria, and it is the fact folks like Millis and you, cannot prioritize their investigations based upon what makes good science, that has us in the mess we're in.
You need to stop treating science investigations as if they were part of some superstition or religion. You're practicing scientism, not science. You might just as well be seeking to understand rainbow colored unicorns. You have no more warrant for belief in QVF than you do for unicorns and yet you keep going out of your way to argue for them. I don't give a bloody damn about your unicorns. There are no reasons to suspect unicorns exist, and there have been no credible sightings of unicorns. You do not have a right to take taxpayer funds and search for unicorns. The same is true of QVF, but it is not true of M-E. -
#3616 by Rodal on 09 Dec, 2014 14:40
-
....
(bold added for emphasis)
The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.
... Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen,
...
In order to correctly interpret how you are proposing that the EM Drive acts as a "sail" getting momentum "push" from the Quantum Vacuum,
Could you please provide a link to the specific papers that you refer (above) as "the van Tiggelen papers" ?
-
#3617 by Mulletron on 09 Dec, 2014 15:33
-
You don't remember? That you have commented on even?....
(bold added for emphasis)
The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.
... Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen, and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small. The rest of the puzzle is the uneven radiation pressure across the dielectric, as seen inside the Shaywer device, as well as Cannae.
...
Could you please provide a link to the specific papers that you refer (above) as "the van Tiggelen papers" ?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.130402
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.248902
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Tiggelen_B/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Rikken_G/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Donaire_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990
http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf
http://www.iesc-proceedings.org/articles/iesc/pdf/2012/01/iesc_qed2012_02004.pdf
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.230402
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.230402
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.143602
http://cmp.physics.iastate.edu/wavepro/program/presentations/Tiggelen.pdf
Bonus material:
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A177593
http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr
This is the one that refutes Dr. White, but the references are useful. It was refreshing to see the author slinging around the same names I have been, which shows I haven't been off on a tangent the whole time.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.5359v1.pdfQuoteNo, that is not an acceleration. That (50nanometers per second) is a velocity.
I knew you were going to use that as a cheap shot
because I forgot to type it fully out. Why do you think I said IIRC? Typical.....anyway that was from the 2003 Feigel paper, which they cited, built upon and refined. And yes going back to the reference, it was velocity.
-
#3618 by RotoSequence on 09 Dec, 2014 16:03
-
Ron, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town.
Actually, it is.....
With no end to upstart theories, not even Einstein's seminal works on relativity can say they're the only game in town. Woodward's work is nowhere near the prestige, acceptance, or levels of proof enjoyed by Einstein, and should not be treated as such without a lot of (as yet forthcoming) experimental proof.
Woodward's ideas are very interesting, and I would like to know more, but I'm looking for experimental proof (or refutation); reading the book can't give me that. -
#3619 by Rodal on 09 Dec, 2014 16:28
-
and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small.
No, that is not an acceleration. That (50nanometers per second) is a velocity. By itself it provides no information what is the acceleration unless one knows the time interval over which it takes place (strictly speaking one needs the velocity function as a function of time)
To know what is the acceleration we need to know what is the time interval over which the velocity gets changed.
If the time interval over which the velocity gets changed is infinitesimally small, this acceleration can approach infinity (or if the time interval is large enough the acceleration can approach zero). Have you seen an acceleration figure from van Tiggelen or the time interval over which this change in velocity takes place?
(Admittedly, the time interval would have to be very small: nanoseconds, for this velocity to entail a large acceleration. To justify the accelerations measured at NASA Eagleworks, the time interval would have to be milliseconds)
See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1294901#msg1294901
NASA Eagleworks measured acceleration = 6 * 10^(-6) m/sec^2
velocity change = 50* 10^(-9) m/sec
implied time interval = ( 50* 10^(-9) m/sec ) / ( 6 * 10^(-6) m/sec^2) = 8 milliseconds
Also, is the velocity change universal irrespective of the dielectric material, geometry, and mass of the spacecraft? What assumptions is this velocity figure (50nanometers per second) predicated on?
because I forgot to type it fully out. Why do you think I said IIRC? Typical.....anyway that was from the 2003 Feigel paper, which they cited, built upon and refined. And yes going back to the reference, it was velocity.