@Shell
Not trying for any specific mode in that test. Just looking for harmonics being generated. But anyway, each of those peaks on the left side of screenshot 11 is a resonance that corresponds to a mode. Which peak is what mode is anybody's guess.
Edit:
It is pretty neat how my mode peaks loosely match up with the mode spectrum from Eagleworks in your pic above. I previously identified two modes, TM212 and TM311(with the help of Rodal *) to use for testing which fall within frequencies that I can generate at home without the help of this whiz bang test equipment.
* http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1353372#msg1353372
* http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1352878#msg1352878
Let's say I take a 1KHz signal and look at it on the SA, what do I see? A peak at 1KHZ? What if I modulate it? FM or AM or both at the same time? What rolls out of a magnetron? AM and FM and zero of close to point crossovers. It's a beautiful mess of additive and subtractive interference.
If I take that 1KHz signal and run it for 16 cycles, but in the center at the 8th cycle flip phases right at the zero cross over point. Insert it into a frustum. Now all of a sudden I've generated a whole line of odd harmonics and little is left of the 1KHZ but if I look at it on the Oscope I'll see the 1KHz and cross over... weird huh?
What I'm trying to say, your harmonics could be buried across the SA sample spectrum and you wouldn't be able to see it on the SA. This is what I'm trying to look for in the varying mode generations within the meep analysis for every mode change there is a frequency and phase shifting more likely introduced by harmonic patterns within the broadband RF into that asymmetrical multi-tuned cavity. Meep is about the only way I can think of seeing them. I guess you could setup a kind of a selective comb filter on the maggie as it's feed into the Waveguide to coax but you also could do a neat thing that X_Ray thought of and setup a trap within the frustum to attenuate the frequencies you didn't want (only after you figured out the ones you wanted) and were causing a heavy loss of Q.
Just throwing out thoughts here.
Shell
PS: The fried chicken and taters and corn were wonderful.
Do you think I should try modulation while looking for harmonic generation? I can do am, fm, 1khz square wave, psk, scalar. Would it be worth it?
@Shell
Not trying for any specific mode in that test. Just looking for harmonics being generated. But anyway, each of those peaks on the left side of screenshot 11 is a resonance that corresponds to a mode. Which peak is what mode is anybody's guess.
Edit:
It is pretty neat how my mode peaks loosely match up with the mode spectrum from Eagleworks in your pic above. I previously identified two modes, TM212 and TM311(with the help of Rodal *) to use for testing which fall within frequencies that I can generate at home without the help of this whiz bang test equipment.
* http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1353372#msg1353372
* http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1352878#msg1352878
Let's say I take a 1KHz signal and look at it on the SA, what do I see? A peak at 1KHZ? What if I modulate it? FM or AM or both at the same time? What rolls out of a magnetron? AM and FM and zero of close to point crossovers. It's a beautiful mess of additive and subtractive interference.
If I take that 1KHz signal and run it for 16 cycles, but in the center at the 8th cycle flip phases right at the zero cross over point. Insert it into a frustum. Now all of a sudden I've generated a whole line of odd harmonics and little is left of the 1KHZ but if I look at it on the Oscope I'll see the 1KHz and cross over... weird huh?
What I'm trying to say, your harmonics could be buried across the SA sample spectrum and you wouldn't be able to see it on the SA. This is what I'm trying to look for in the varying mode generations within the meep analysis for every mode change there is a frequency and phase shifting more likely introduced by harmonic patterns within the broadband RF into that asymmetrical multi-tuned cavity. Meep is about the only way I can think of seeing them. I guess you could setup a kind of a selective comb filter on the maggie as it's feed into the Waveguide to coax but you also could do a neat thing that X_Ray thought of and setup a trap within the frustum to attenuate the frequencies you didn't want (only after you figured out the ones you wanted) and were causing a heavy loss of Q.
Just throwing out thoughts here.
Shell
PS: The fried chicken and taters and corn were wonderful.
Do you think I should try modulation while looking for harmonic generation? I can do am, fm, 1khz square wave, psk, scalar. Would it be worth it?
I'd do a simple one first, a square wave will give you components of odd-integer harmonic and then do a sinusoidal and compare the two in your SA.
How were you planning to excite your dielectric material?
That work about swimming through spacetime seems similar to other stuff I've read about gravitomagnetic fields from rotating masses.
We haven't spent much time discussing the motion of charged particles in response to the time varying electromagnetic fields of various modes.
Long shot here, but I was reading up on how squeezed light can be generated and I found that one way is via nonlinear frequency mixing. I think I saw evidence of frequency mixing a few months ago by accident. Guess I pretty much have to bust out the test equipment again now to confirm.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83/how-is-squeezed-light-produced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics#Nonlinear_optical_processes
Anyway, there's some literature out there about using squeezed vacuum for propulsion which is interesting.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258317790_Preliminary_Theorectical_Considerations_for_Getting_Thrust_via_Squeezed_Vacuum
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234887561_Extraction_of_Thrust_from_Quantum_Vacuum_Using_Squeezed_Light
Results of search for second or third harmonic generation is null. There is no support found for any harmonic generation by the frustum in my possession (no dielectric insert) in the low power regime. Input power was 0dbm.
Screenshot 10 shows spectrum analyzer with sweep generator attached (no frustum in between). Sweeper set from 700-2700mhz (between markers 1&2). Spectrum analyzer span from well below frustum cutoff to max range of gear (600-6700mhz). Harmonic generation between markers 3&4 are from the sweeper.
Screenshot 11 shows same but with sweep generator feeding frustum and spectrum analyzer on frustum sample port. Harmonic generation is the same.
So my empty copper can isn't showing any evidence of nonlinear optical behavior. High power remains unexplored. Would be interesting if one could purposely introduce this kind of behavior to see what happens.
The levels of intermodulation products generated in the frustum (without dielectric) and associated waveguide and coaxials, are certainly very low and not accessible to your Spectrum Analyser without a preliminary power amplification.
Passive Intermodulation Product (PIMP) can be generated for example at Waveguide Flange location where metal-metal contact occurs with contamination or oxydation presence.
This phenomena is well known in Space Communication Payloads where, by coupling between Transmit and Receive RF paths, an intermodulation product of the transmit channels (generally of order 5, 7, 9 ...) can fall in their receive bandwidth. Mitigation of this effect relies on:
- A proper choice of the Receive/Transmit frequency plan to ensure for exemple that no 3th or 5th intermodulation product can fall in the receive band.
- Quality assurance control on the choice of metals and cleanless of surfaces in contact.
- Use of waveguide flange design ensuring a high mechanical pressure.
- Avoid of coaxial cable in some sensitive situation.
But if intermodulation products play a role in the EMDrive phenomena (2nd harmonic ?) they are certainly due to the Active Intermodulation occuring in the magnetron itself and not to the very low level PIMP.
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Thanks very much for the information. Do you refer to the articles:"Polarizable Vacuum (PV) and the Schwarzschild Solution", "Polarizable Vacuum and the Reissner-Nordstrom Solution" ?
Are these Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom Solutions compatible with the need of an horizon of causality for the Transactional interpretation of instantaneous action of Inertia Force ( “advanced” wave propagating backward in time) ?
...
Now I agree with you that the Puthof's Polarizable Vacuum theory cannot be a replacement for General Relativity and its endorsement of Mach (not March ! 
) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Can PV make any experimentally verifiable predictions different to those made by mainstream physics, that would earn it a place at the table? I think not, otherwise it would be big news.
Prof. Dr. James Woodward, it is my understanding, is of the opinion that the only way that any propulsion out of the EM Drive could be justified using his Machian theory is if the EM Drive contains a dielectric insert as used by NASA in their experiments.
Therefore, the experiments performed by RFMWGUY, as well as the latest experiments and designs of Shaywer, and the experiments of Yang and Tajmar, for example cannot result in space propulsion according to Prof. Woodward's theory since all these experiments do not include any dielectric insert. Prof. Woodward, as I understand it, maintains that an EM Drive tested without a dielectric insert cannot obtain any thrust whatsoever for space propulsion because such thrust is precluded by what Prof. Woodward calls "THE LAW" in capital letters: the law of conservation of momentum.
I think your statements are too much dogmatic. James Woodward considers that a variety of different physical systems can be imagined that store internal energy during accelerations and so that in principle, several options for exploring Mach effects should be available to us even if the use of capacitors offer the best efficiency .
Simple macroscopic mechanical systems can do the job but, however, aren’t good candidates for the production of Mach effects at an adequate level, since the rate at which internal energy changes can be affected is quite limited. What we want are systems where the time-derivatives can be made quite large. In terms of practical apparatus, that means that we are going to be looking at systems involving electromagnetism. There are several electromagnetic energy storage devices – capacitors, inductors, and batteries. Since we are looking for fast transient effects, batteries will have difficulties to follow. Inductors store energy in the magnetic field, and to put some of this energy into an accelerating material medium, we would need to provide the inductor with some core material with, preferably, a high permeability. Although a system using magnetic energy storage in some high permeability medium is plainly feasible, capacitors have several features that make them preferable to inductors.
So you cannot say (and for sure James Woodward does not say) that other approaches than the use of capacitor are unable to generate a mass variation predicted by the Mach effect whatever its level.
Prof. Dr. James Woodward, it is my understanding, is of the opinion that the only way that any propulsion out of the EM Drive could be justified using his Machian theory is if the EM Drive contains a dielectric insert as used by NASA in their experiments.
Therefore, the experiments performed by RFMWGUY, as well as the latest experiments and designs of Shaywer, and the experiments of Yang and Tajmar, for example cannot result in space propulsion according to Prof. Woodward's theory since all these experiments do not include any dielectric insert. Prof. Woodward, as I understand it, maintains that an EM Drive tested without a dielectric insert cannot obtain any thrust whatsoever for space propulsion because such thrust is precluded by what Prof. Woodward calls "THE LAW" in capital letters: the law of conservation of momentum.
I think your statements are too much dogmatic....
I think you have not yet discussed these matters with Prof. Woodward, to seek his opinion on whether he agrees with your rendition of his theory for Shawyer's EM Drive without a dielectric.
I think you have not yet discussed these matters with Prof. Woodward, to seek his opinion on whether he agrees with your rendition of his theory for Shawyer's EM Drive without a dielectric.
Oh but I am not in a position to propose a theory explaining the EMDrive phenomena. I am just looking for the possible differences between successful experiments (Shawyer, Chinese, German ...) and other non conclusive experiments based on the same principle. The idea to look for the presence or not of the second harmonic is an empirical borrow to the approach of Woodward. I have nothing against the use of dielectric in RF cavities design, but it seems well that some successful experiments don't need dielectric to give measurable thrust. So other(s) parameter(s) should be looked for to explain the differences between supposed honest test results.
I made one more debug run, reducing the resolution from 250 to 100. For frequency ~ 5.0 GHz (fsi = 4.99e9) loop parameters are:
start making a loop antenna
Number of points, NP = 113.0
half wave length meep = 0.10013108149632599 loop diameter meep = 0.18
loop circumference meep = 0.5654866776461628
periods around the loop = 2.823731998075501
meep frequency = 4.993454505116336
Loop antenna created
If there is a bug maybe I'll see it after I post this.
Unfortunately, the image scales with resolution the number of pixels ratio as 100/250, in this case.
Quite an interesting wave pattern.
Back from a short break...nope...I will not make a comment about an EM Vortex looking pattern
I think you have not yet discussed these matters with Prof. Woodward, to seek his opinion on whether he agrees with your rendition of his theory for Shawyer's EM Drive without a dielectric.
Oh but I am not in a position to propose a theory explaining the EMDrive phenomena. I am just looking for the possible differences between successful experiments (Shawyer, Chinese, German ...) and other non conclusive experiments based on the same principle. The idea to look for the presence or not of the second harmonic is an empirical borrow to the approach of Woodward. I have nothing against the use of dielectric in RF cavities design, but it seems well that some successful experiments don't need dielectric to give measurable thrust. So other(s) parameter(s) should be looked for to explain the differences between supposed honest test results.
Fair enough, but I am still in the mode of eliminating faulty results such as thermal lift and getting higher resolution on downward movement. This will take some time and $$. once measurement is where I want it, I move back to the frustum. First, characterize resonance and tune for 2.45ghz if needed. A dielectric will help tune, but it could also induce movement based on outgassing at high temp. Recall EW melted some plastic hardware during testing. Guess dielectric pucks are one of my last mods to consider.
I made one more debug run, reducing the resolution from 250 to 100. For frequency ~ 5.0 GHz (fsi = 4.99e9) loop parameters are:
start making a loop antenna
Number of points, NP = 113.0
half wave length meep = 0.10013108149632599 loop diameter meep = 0.18
loop circumference meep = 0.5654866776461628
periods around the loop = 2.823731998075501
meep frequency = 4.993454505116336
Loop antenna created
If there is a bug maybe I'll see it after I post this.
Unfortunately, the image scales with resolution the number of pixels ratio as 100/250, in this case.
Quite an interesting wave pattern.
Back from a short break...nope...I will not make a comment about an EM Vortex looking pattern
heheheh, you with me big guy? So you like the loop?
Shell
I made one more debug run, reducing the resolution from 250 to 100. For frequency ~ 5.0 GHz (fsi = 4.99e9) loop parameters are:
start making a loop antenna
Number of points, NP = 113.0
half wave length meep = 0.10013108149632599 loop diameter meep = 0.18
loop circumference meep = 0.5654866776461628
periods around the loop = 2.823731998075501
meep frequency = 4.993454505116336
Loop antenna created
If there is a bug maybe I'll see it after I post this.
Unfortunately, the image scales with resolution the number of pixels ratio as 100/250, in this case.
Quite an interesting wave pattern.
Back from a short break...nope...I will not make a comment about an EM Vortex looking pattern
heheheh, you with me big guy? So you like the loop?
Shell
Before I get to my point, I thought I'd just mention a misspeak in the above. With h5topng images, the number of pixels ratio go with resolution as (100/250)
2 since the image is 2 dimensional. (For resolution going from 250 to 100.)
Now, the image is correct. Much clearer images will be forthcoming. The field patterns spiral out from the loop because electricity flows around the loop at a finite speed creating fields as it flows. This same characteristic is true for dipole antennas although not true for a meep simulated line source that I have been calling a dipole. The meep line source is not a dipole at all. It is a line with all points simultaneously excited. In the real world, electric charge moving in a wire radiate fields as the charge moves to and fro, there is nothing simultaneous about it on that scale.
That means that we need to think again about what previous meep data actually means and the difference in the EM field excitation patterns between antennas and wave guides. I'll speculate that meep will calculate much lower Q values when the cavity is excited by a model of a real-world antenna.
You all know more antenna theory than I do, but for the uninformed like me, here is an easy example -reference.
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/73998/how-antenna-radiateshow-currents-flows-through-wire
... The meep line source is not a dipole at all. It is a line with all points simultaneously excited. In the real world, electric charge moving in a wire radiate fields as the charge moves to and fro, there is nothing simultaneous about it on that scale.... I'll speculate that meep will calculate much lower Q values when the cavity is excited by a model of a real-world antenna...
Are you planning to run a "model of a real world" straight antenna for comparison with the "Meep line source"?
...
Now I agree with you that the Puthof's Polarizable Vacuum theory cannot be a replacement for General Relativity and its endorsement of Mach (not March ! ) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Can PV make any experimentally verifiable predictions different to those made by mainstream physics, that would earn it a place at the table? I think not, otherwise it would be big news.
Hypothetically, it predicts that the Hubble expansion "red shift" could be (partly) due to our rulers contracting as the universe runs out of energy. All it takes is for 1 meter to contract by 6.8 nanometers/century, as the driving power of the ZPF runs down in the present, relative to the distant past we view through our telescope, to account for the Hubble expansion.
Todd
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Thanks very much for the information. Do you refer to the articles:"Polarizable Vacuum (PV) and the Schwarzschild Solution", "Polarizable Vacuum and the Reissner-Nordstrom Solution" ?
Are these Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom Solutions compatible with the need of an horizon of causality for the Transactional interpretation of instantaneous action of Inertia Force ( “advanced” wave propagating backward in time) ?
Yes, those are Joe Depp's papers. They are not long and do not cover the aspects you are referring to. They are simply alternative solutions (corrections) to Puthoff's PV Model. PM me if you want to read the JBIS submission.
Regarding inertia, IMO all that is needed is doppler shift to account for it.
Todd
... The meep line source is not a dipole at all. It is a line with all points simultaneously excited. In the real world, electric charge moving in a wire radiate fields as the charge moves to and fro, there is nothing simultaneous about it on that scale.... I'll speculate that meep will calculate much lower Q values when the cavity is excited by a model of a real-world antenna...
Are you planning to run a "model of a real world" straight antenna for comparison with the "Meep line source"?
If there is sufficient interest on NSF for me to set aside other tasks we want to have worked. But first I need to at least generate some usable results with the loop antenna so that my modelling approach can be vetted.
I guess next we need to decide whether or not line source antenna models are actually of any use to us. Line source antennas should be fine for radiation in the far field, but
everything inside the frustums are near field. At least, some mix of near and far field.
...
Now I agree with you that the Puthof's Polarizable Vacuum theory cannot be a replacement for General Relativity and its endorsement of Mach (not March ! ) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Can PV make any experimentally verifiable predictions different to those made by mainstream physics, that would earn it a place at the table? I think not, otherwise it would be big news.
Hypothetically, it predicts that the Hubble expansion "red shift" could be (partly) due to our rulers contracting as the universe runs out of energy. All it takes is for 1 meter to contract by 6.8 nanometers/century, as the driving power of the ZPF runs down in the present, relative to the distant past we view through our telescope, to account for the Hubble expansion.
Todd
Yes, but I did ask for something experimentally verifiable. If everything, including our measuring sticks, is changing then how could we know? Can you devise any experiment to test any of PV's unique predictions?
...
Now I agree with you that the Puthof's Polarizable Vacuum theory cannot be a replacement for General Relativity and its endorsement of Mach (not March ! ) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Can PV make any experimentally verifiable predictions different to those made by mainstream physics, that would earn it a place at the table? I think not, otherwise it would be big news.
Hypothetically, it predicts that the Hubble expansion "red shift" could be (partly) due to our rulers contracting as the universe runs out of energy. All it takes is for 1 meter to contract by 6.8 nanometers/century, as the driving power of the ZPF runs down in the present, relative to the distant past we view through our telescope, to account for the Hubble expansion.
Todd
Yes, but I did ask for something experimentally verifiable. If everything, including our measuring sticks, is changing then how could we know? Can you devise any experiment to test any of PV's unique predictions?
The thing is, it is not unique. I can predict the same thing using GR, resulting from variation of the metric coefficient. So it wouldn't solve anything. Again, PV is simply an alternative interpretation of GR. The math is identical, so the predictions are also identical. Until we have a verifiable "accepted" model of Quantum Gravity, both PV and GR are classical theories which are complimentary interpretations of the observable data. My QG model, is an engineering tool that works within the parameters I need it to work. That's all.
Todd
) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).