### Author Topic: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster  (Read 40206 times)

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #40 on: 12/25/2015 12:20 am »
Lin, we need you to further describe what you mean by "sending a tensor".  Maxwell's  stress tensor components are either tension or compression normal to a surface, or shear parallel to a surface.

Hence your statement "sending a tensor" can be literally interpreted as:

1) sending a tensile (pressure) or compressive force distribution normal to a surface

and/or

2) sending a shear parallel to a surface

(and these force distributions are going to be balanced on the opposite surface of the infinitesimal cube defining the tensor)

Do you mean applying an electromagnetic stress tensor component (a force distribution applied to a surface)?

If so, how do you propose to apply an electromagnetic force distribution, through space, (via the electromagnetic vector fields E and B), other than by using photons?

"sending a tensor" I mean send the momentum flux.
"Do you mean applying an electromagnetic stress tensor component". Yes, that's right.
I have said that in the equation 4-1, -▽∙T and -∂g/∂t have the same status. So if -∂g/∂t(photons) can be sent, then why not -▽∙T(momentum flux)?

In my design, when the electric field of electromagnetic wave generate electric field force on the metal panel, it generate some momentum flux. It is obviously that the momentum flux can not go to the electromagnetic wave source if the source is very far away. So the momentum flux will go into the open space, that is sending momentum flux.

Both terms -∂g/∂t and-▽∙T are terms of an equation of dynamic equilibrium.  The term ▽∙T arises from static equilibrium (just as static equilibrium in the theory of continuum mechanics of deformable bodies).  The term -∂g/∂t arises from the dynamic aspect of electromagnetism.

g is related to linear momentum carried by the (macroscopic) electromagnetic fields ( E and B) . At the particle level this linear momentum is carried by the virtual {and/or real} photons associated with the macroscopic E and B fields.

▽∙T physically corresponds to the total {instantaneous} EM field linear momentum per unit time flowing through the surface.

For example, for mechanical forces, one has Newton's 2nd law for a rigid body:

m*∂v/∂t  - F = 0

where F is the applied force.  So, in this case applying a force results in an acceleration, the equation of equilibrium has two terms that balance each other.   Applying a force or an acceleration are equivalent ways to describe the same thing.

Similarly for the electromagnetic equation of dyamic equilibrium,  one can describe the behavior macroscopically by the electromagnetic fields (E and B).  Both of these fields are due, at the particle level, to photons.

Both terms  -∂g/∂t and-▽∙T are going to arise in the dynamic equation of equilibrium as a result of these fields.

"Both terms  -∂g/∂t and-▽∙T are going to arise", Yes, both terms will arise. In my design, too. But the difference between my design and a photon thruster is that a photon thruster does not send momentum flux out, only send photons out. But my design will send some momentum flux out, it will send some photons out too, but that is side effect.

In my design, the electric field force on the metal panel can be considered as external force, that's why my design does not follow momentum conservation law(Newton's version).

In Newton's 2nd law, m*∂v/∂t = ∂p/∂t, and  p match g, then In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T. So the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation does not follow the Newton's 2nd law if -▽∙T is not zero.

You talk about "the particle level". As we know, in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law. And we know the smaller the volume is, the higher probability that -▽∙T will not be zero, then the higher probability that particles does not follow Newton's 2nd law. This can explain why in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law.
When you state << In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T.>> that's only true for the special case of a rigid body (*) in static equilibrium in the absence of body forces, and only true, because in that case ▽∙T = 0.  So, the ▽∙T term is still there, it is only that its value is zero for that special case.

Newton's law, in general, for deformable bodies is:

▽∙T + rho * b - rho * ∂v/∂t = 0

where T is the Cauchy stress (defined with respect to the deformed configuration as per usual sign convention), rho is the mass density and b is the body force.  So, there is no big difference between the equation of dynamic equilibrium in Continuum Mechanics for deformable bodies, and the one for Electromagnetism, for the general case.  Both must contain the term ▽∙T  in order to enforce equilbrium for a deformable body.  People working in solid mechanics, mechanical and aerospace engineers, use such an equation containing ▽∙T to solve practical problems dealing with stresses in structures.

In the above expression, ∂v/∂t should be interpreted as a convected time derivative.  (for small strains, and small displacements as in metal deformations under usual forces for example, it is approximately the time rate).  For highly deformable bodies, for example, for large strains of solid bodies or for general deformation of fluids, the convected time rate of the vector v, becomes  "the material derivative" ∂vi/∂t + vk ∂vi/∂yk  where ∂v/∂t is taken at a constant spatial coordinate y, and I introduce index notation for clarity:

▽∙T + rho * bi - rho * ∂vi/∂t - rho * vk ∂vi/∂yk = 0

_______

Concerning

<<You talk about "the particle level". As we know, in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law. And we know the smaller the volume is, the higher probability that -▽∙T will not be zero, then the higher probability that particles does not follow Newton's 2nd law. This can explain why in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law>>.

It is known, that quantum mechanics, for a huge ensemble of particles (in this case a huge ensemble of {real or virtual} photons) gives the same results at the macro level as classical electromagnetism.  In your invention, it looks like the number of particles is so large that there is no need to invoke quantum mechanics (and you are not invoking quantum coherence and decoherence), as the behavior should be fully explainable at the macro level.

_____________
(*) rigid body = an idealization of a material as having an infinite modulus of elasticity, such that it does not deform under application of a finite stress.  Bodies having a finite modulus of elasticity will deform under a stress gradient ▽∙T, and hence the term ▽∙T  must be included in Newton's law when considering a real material that has a finite modulus of elasticity, in order to satisfy equilibrium.

Merry Christmas, Rodal!

You are talking about the Continuum Mechanics, then it proved that vacuum is also continuum. It means vacuum is just like the water can also be pushed. We can push vacuum in vacuum with electromagnetic fields.

Electric field force has much higher efficiency than radiation pressure in using energy, so my design is not a photon thruster.

Just imagine, if we do not use the metal panel but just put a still charged object on the electromagnetic wave propagation path. And we know in half a cycle the electric field force direction of electromagnetic wave will not change, so we can calculate the average electric field force on the object in half a cycle. Because the initial state of the object is still, so the energy of the object will all come from the electromagnetic wave. After you calculated the average electric field force, then you can compare it with radiation pressure. And you will see that electric field force has much higher efficiency than radiation pressure in using the energy electromagnetic wave.
« Last Edit: 12/25/2015 12:25 am by ZhixianLin »

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #41 on: 12/25/2015 01:36 am »
"Both terms  -∂g/∂t and-▽∙T are going to arise", Yes, both terms will arise. In my design, too. But the difference between my design and a photon thruster is that a photon thruster does not send momentum flux out, only send photons out. But my design will send some momentum flux out, it will send some photons out too, but that is side effect.

In my design, the electric field force on the metal panel can be considered as external force, that's why my design does not follow momentum conservation law(Newton's version).

In Newton's 2nd law, m*∂v/∂t = ∂p/∂t, and  p match g, then In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T. So the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation does not follow the Newton's 2nd law if -▽∙T is not zero.

You talk about "the particle level". As we know, in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law. And we know the smaller the volume is, the higher probability that -▽∙T will not be zero, then the higher probability that particles does not follow Newton's 2nd law. This can explain why in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law.
When you state << In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T.>> that's only true for the special case of a rigid body (*) in static equilibrium in the absence of body forces, and only true, because in that case ▽∙T = 0.  So, the ▽∙T term is still there, it is only that its value is zero for that special case.

Newton's law, in general, for deformable bodies is:

▽∙T + rho * b - rho * ∂v/∂t = 0

where T is the Cauchy stress (defined with respect to the deformed configuration as per usual sign convention), rho is the mass density and b is the body force.  So, there is no big difference between the equation of dynamic equilibrium in Continuum Mechanics for deformable bodies, and the one for Electromagnetism, for the general case.  Both must contain the term ▽∙T  in order to enforce equilbrium for a deformable body.  People working in solid mechanics, mechanical and aerospace engineers, use such an equation containing ▽∙T to solve practical problems dealing with stresses in structures.

In the above expression, ∂v/∂t should be interpreted as a convected time derivative.  (for small strains, and small displacements as in metal deformations under usual forces for example, it is approximately the time rate).  For highly deformable bodies, for example, for large strains of solid bodies or for general deformation of fluids, the convected time rate of the vector v, becomes  "the material derivative" ∂vi/∂t + vk ∂vi/∂yk  where ∂v/∂t is taken at a constant spatial coordinate y, and I introduce index notation for clarity:

▽∙T + rho * bi - rho * ∂vi/∂t - rho * vk ∂vi/∂yk = 0

_______

Concerning

<<You talk about "the particle level". As we know, in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law. And we know the smaller the volume is, the higher probability that -▽∙T will not be zero, then the higher probability that particles does not follow Newton's 2nd law. This can explain why in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law>>.

It is known, that quantum mechanics, for a huge ensemble of particles (in this case a huge ensemble of {real or virtual} photons) gives the same results at the macro level as classical electromagnetism.  In your invention, it looks like the number of particles is so large that there is no need to invoke quantum mechanics (and you are not invoking quantum coherence and decoherence), as the behavior should be fully explainable at the macro level.

_____________
(*) rigid body = an idealization of a material as having an infinite modulus of elasticity, such that it does not deform under application of a finite stress.  Bodies having a finite modulus of elasticity will deform under a stress gradient ▽∙T, and hence the term ▽∙T  must be included in Newton's law when considering a real material that has a finite modulus of elasticity, in order to satisfy equilibrium.

Merry Christmas, Rodal!

You are talking about the Continuum Mechanics, then it proved that vacuum is also continuum. It means vacuum is just like the water can also be pushed. We can push vacuum in vacuum with electromagnetic fields.

Electric field force has much higher efficiency than radiation pressure in using energy, so my design is not a photon thruster.

Just imagine, if we do not use the metal panel but just put a still charged object on the electromagnetic wave propagation path. And we know in half a cycle the electric field force direction of electromagnetic wave will not change, so we can calculate the average electric field force on the object in half a cycle. Because the initial state of the object is still, so the energy of the object will all come from the electromagnetic wave. After you calculated the average electric field force, then you can compare it with radiation pressure. And you will see that electric field force has much higher efficiency than radiation pressure in using the energy electromagnetic wave.

Merry Christmas, Lin !

Yes, you are correct that the Quantum Vacuum can be thought of as a fluid, and actually there are papers from Universities studying the Quantum Vacuum as a fluid, starting with the great Nobel Prize winner Dirac, who called it a "sea".  (*)

Your proposed drive sounds too good to be true, and I don't believe in Santa Claus

(although Santa is supposed to come through my chimney in a few hours    )

Therefore there must be something wrong with your concept, because any drive better than a photon rocket, would be too good to be believed.

I would start by looking for "hidden momentum" to find something wrong.    There must be a field calculation not being included in your analysis that brings us back to our unexciting reality

Yes, I would start by looking for "hidden momentum" not being included in your equations that balances the propulsion.

__________

(*) However, most physicists think that one cannot use the Quantum Vacuum (QV) to do anything useful because the QV is inmutable and not degradable, and because it is supposed to be the lowest state of energy, so it cannot be disturbed and you cannot extract energy from it.
« Last Edit: 12/25/2015 01:46 am by Rodal »

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #42 on: 12/25/2015 02:01 am »
"Both terms  -∂g/∂t and-▽∙T are going to arise", Yes, both terms will arise. In my design, too. But the difference between my design and a photon thruster is that a photon thruster does not send momentum flux out, only send photons out. But my design will send some momentum flux out, it will send some photons out too, but that is side effect.

In my design, the electric field force on the metal panel can be considered as external force, that's why my design does not follow momentum conservation law(Newton's version).

In Newton's 2nd law, m*∂v/∂t = ∂p/∂t, and  p match g, then In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T. So the Electromagnetic Momentum Conservation Equation does not follow the Newton's 2nd law if -▽∙T is not zero.

You talk about "the particle level". As we know, in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law. And we know the smaller the volume is, the higher probability that -▽∙T will not be zero, then the higher probability that particles does not follow Newton's 2nd law. This can explain why in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law.
When you state << In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T.>> that's only true for the special case of a rigid body (*) in static equilibrium in the absence of body forces, and only true, because in that case ▽∙T = 0.  So, the ▽∙T term is still there, it is only that its value is zero for that special case.

Newton's law, in general, for deformable bodies is:

▽∙T + rho * b - rho * ∂v/∂t = 0

where T is the Cauchy stress (defined with respect to the deformed configuration as per usual sign convention), rho is the mass density and b is the body force.  So, there is no big difference between the equation of dynamic equilibrium in Continuum Mechanics for deformable bodies, and the one for Electromagnetism, for the general case.  Both must contain the term ▽∙T  in order to enforce equilbrium for a deformable body.  People working in solid mechanics, mechanical and aerospace engineers, use such an equation containing ▽∙T to solve practical problems dealing with stresses in structures.

In the above expression, ∂v/∂t should be interpreted as a convected time derivative.  (for small strains, and small displacements as in metal deformations under usual forces for example, it is approximately the time rate).  For highly deformable bodies, for example, for large strains of solid bodies or for general deformation of fluids, the convected time rate of the vector v, becomes  "the material derivative" ∂vi/∂t + vk ∂vi/∂yk  where ∂v/∂t is taken at a constant spatial coordinate y, and I introduce index notation for clarity:

▽∙T + rho * bi - rho * ∂vi/∂t - rho * vk ∂vi/∂yk = 0

_______

Concerning

<<You talk about "the particle level". As we know, in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law. And we know the smaller the volume is, the higher probability that -▽∙T will not be zero, then the higher probability that particles does not follow Newton's 2nd law. This can explain why in quantum mechanics, particles usually does not follow Newton's 2nd law>>.

It is known, that quantum mechanics, for a huge ensemble of particles (in this case a huge ensemble of {real or virtual} photons) gives the same results at the macro level as classical electromagnetism.  In your invention, it looks like the number of particles is so large that there is no need to invoke quantum mechanics (and you are not invoking quantum coherence and decoherence), as the behavior should be fully explainable at the macro level.

_____________
(*) rigid body = an idealization of a material as having an infinite modulus of elasticity, such that it does not deform under application of a finite stress.  Bodies having a finite modulus of elasticity will deform under a stress gradient ▽∙T, and hence the term ▽∙T  must be included in Newton's law when considering a real material that has a finite modulus of elasticity, in order to satisfy equilibrium.

Merry Christmas, Rodal!

You are talking about the Continuum Mechanics, then it proved that vacuum is also continuum. It means vacuum is just like the water can also be pushed. We can push vacuum in vacuum with electromagnetic fields.

Electric field force has much higher efficiency than radiation pressure in using energy, so my design is not a photon thruster.

Just imagine, if we do not use the metal panel but just put a still charged object on the electromagnetic wave propagation path. And we know in half a cycle the electric field force direction of electromagnetic wave will not change, so we can calculate the average electric field force on the object in half a cycle. Because the initial state of the object is still, so the energy of the object will all come from the electromagnetic wave. After you calculated the average electric field force, then you can compare it with radiation pressure. And you will see that electric field force has much higher efficiency than radiation pressure in using the energy electromagnetic wave.

Merry Christmas, Lin !

Yes, you are correct that the Quantum Vacuum can be thought of as a fluid, and actually there are papers from Universities studying the Quantum Vacuum as a fluid, starting with the great Nobel Prize winner Dirac, who called it a "sea".  (*)

Your proposed drive sounds too good to be true, and I don't believe in Santa Claus

(although Santa is supposed to come through my chimney in a few hours    )

Therefore there must be something wrong with your concept, because any drive better than a photon rocket, would be too good to be believed.

I would start by looking for "hidden momentum" to find something wrong.    There must be a field calculation not being included in your analysis that brings us back to our unexciting reality

Yes, I would start by looking for "hidden momentum" not being included in your equations that balances the propulsion.

__________

(*) However, most physicists think that one cannot use the Quantum Vacuum (QV) to do anything useful because the QV is inmutable and not degradable, and because it is supposed to be the lowest state of energy, so it cannot be disturbed and you cannot extract energy from it.

Yes, it is too good to be true. But I can not find any bugs or errors of my design yet. I wish I am not fooling myself.

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #43 on: 12/25/2015 02:42 am »
...Yes, it is too good to be true. But I can not find any bugs or errors of my design yet. I wish I am not fooling myself.
Well, while we think of what could be wrong with the concept, what do you think of modifying the part in your paper discussing Newton's law,  since << In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T.>> that's only true for the special case of a rigid body in static equilibrium in the absence of body forces, and only true, because in that case ▽∙T = 0.  So, the ▽∙T term is still there, it is only that its value is zero for that special case.  For a deformable (solid or fluid) continuum, the term ▽∙T must be included in Newton's law, as discussed above.

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #44 on: 12/25/2015 03:24 am »
...Yes, it is too good to be true. But I can not find any bugs or errors of my design yet. I wish I am not fooling myself.
Well, while we think of what could be wrong with the concept, what do you think of modifying the part in your paper discussing Newton's law,  since << In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T.>> that's only true for the special case of a rigid body in static equilibrium in the absence of body forces, and only true, because in that case ▽∙T = 0.  So, the ▽∙T term is still there, it is only that its value is zero for that special case.  For a deformable (solid or fluid) continuum, the term ▽∙T must be included in Newton's law, as discussed above.

Honestly, I am not quite sure about that. But I think change -▽∙T to -∫v▽∙T will be more rigorous.

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #45 on: 12/25/2015 01:44 pm »
...Yes, it is too good to be true. But I can not find any bugs or errors of my design yet. I wish I am not fooling myself.
Well, while we think of what could be wrong with the concept, what do you think of modifying the part in your paper discussing Newton's law,  since << In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T.>> that's only true for the special case of a rigid body in static equilibrium in the absence of body forces, and only true, because in that case ▽∙T = 0.  So, the ▽∙T term is still there, it is only that its value is zero for that special case.  For a deformable (solid or fluid) continuum, the term ▽∙T must be included in Newton's law, as discussed above.

Honestly, I am not quite sure about that. But I think change -▽∙T to -∫v▽∙T will be more rigorous.
There is no point in multiplying the gradient by the velocity vector and integrating.
The way I presented the equation is the correct rigorous way:

▽∙T + rho * bi - rho * ∂vi/∂t - rho * vk ∂vi/∂yk = 0

This equation can be found in multiple rigorous books (most notably the treatises by Truesdell and Toupin and Truesdell and Noll in Handbuch der Physik, and most books in Continuum Mechanics).  For easy Internet reference (in case you don't have access to the Handbuch der Physik, please refer to the Wikipedia article on the Cauchy momentum equation for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_momentum_equation

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En221/Notes/Conservation_Laws/Conservation_Laws.htm

or this chapter for Cauchy's equation of motion for fluids:

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ceng501/Chap5.pdf

Again, Newton's law as you presented it is only valid for non-deformable materials, having an infinite modulus of elasticity, in other words it is a simplistic generalization that no real material in the whole Universe follows, because all materials and fluids are deformable to some extent.

The correct expression for Newton's law must contain ▽∙T,  the gradient of the stress tensor.

▽∙T,  the gradient of the stress tensor, appears in the equlibrium equations for fluids, for deformable solids and for electromagnetism.  Hence Newton's law (when properly stated for deformable continuum) is equally applicable in fluid and solid mechanics as well as in electromagnetism.
« Last Edit: 12/25/2015 02:18 pm by Rodal »

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #46 on: 12/26/2015 12:06 am »
...Yes, it is too good to be true. But I can not find any bugs or errors of my design yet. I wish I am not fooling myself.
Well, while we think of what could be wrong with the concept, what do you think of modifying the part in your paper discussing Newton's law,  since << In Newton's 2nd law there is not term to match -▽∙T.>> that's only true for the special case of a rigid body in static equilibrium in the absence of body forces, and only true, because in that case ▽∙T = 0.  So, the ▽∙T term is still there, it is only that its value is zero for that special case.  For a deformable (solid or fluid) continuum, the term ▽∙T must be included in Newton's law, as discussed above.

Honestly, I am not quite sure about that. But I think change -▽∙T to -∫v▽∙T will be more rigorous.
There is no point in multiplying the gradient by the velocity vector and integrating.
The way I presented the equation is the correct rigorous way:

▽∙T + rho * bi - rho * ∂vi/∂t - rho * vk ∂vi/∂yk = 0

This equation can be found in multiple rigorous books (most notably the treatises by Truesdell and Toupin and Truesdell and Noll in Handbuch der Physik, and most books in Continuum Mechanics).  For easy Internet reference (in case you don't have access to the Handbuch der Physik, please refer to the Wikipedia article on the Cauchy momentum equation for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_momentum_equation

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En221/Notes/Conservation_Laws/Conservation_Laws.htm

or this chapter for Cauchy's equation of motion for fluids:

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ceng501/Chap5.pdf

Again, Newton's law as you presented it is only valid for non-deformable materials, having an infinite modulus of elasticity, in other words it is a simplistic generalization that no real material in the whole Universe follows, because all materials and fluids are deformable to some extent.

The correct expression for Newton's law must contain ▽∙T,  the gradient of the stress tensor.

▽∙T,  the gradient of the stress tensor, appears in the equlibrium equations for fluids, for deformable solids and for electromagnetism.  Hence Newton's law (when properly stated for deformable continuum) is equally applicable in fluid and solid mechanics as well as in electromagnetism.

I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #47 on: 12/26/2015 04:01 am »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #48 on: 12/26/2015 05:13 am »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #49 on: 12/26/2015 12:41 pm »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
This statement is a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory.

But then, you appear to go back, as you state

<< So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law>>

1) The equations you are using for Electromagnetism 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations
2) Maxwell conceived those equations as being contained in a continuous aether (a medium with finite modulus of elasticity, NOT with infinite modulus of elasticity)
3) Einstein showed that there was no aether.  He eventually replaced the aether with a continuous gravitational field that permeates the whole Universe.  The theory of General Relativity is a CONTINUUM theory as well
4) The Quantum Vacuum is continuous
5) You have to use Cauchy's generalization of Newton's law, that contains the stress gradient, because the Newton's law you are using in your paper is a simplification, that neglects deformation of the continuum.  The Newton's law that you are using assumed INFINITE modulus of elasticity.  There is no medium in the Universe with an infinite modulus of elasticity.  The Newton's law F = ma you are using is a simplification used in elementary classes, that completely neglects the stress gradient.  The stress gradient is not zero in general, because all mediums are deformable.  You must use the stress gradient in your discussion of Newton's law.

When you discuss Newton's law without including the stress gradient you are discussing an unreal medium that has no stress gradient and which is not deformable.  Concerning the Quantum Vacuum see Paul Dirac's paper.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2015 12:52 pm by Rodal »

#### oliverio

• Member
• Posts: 86
• Liked: 25
• Likes Given: 2
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #50 on: 12/26/2015 05:21 pm »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
This statement is a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory.

...

3) Einstein showed that there was no aether.  He eventually replaced the aether with a continuous gravitational field that permeates the whole Universe.  The theory of General Relativity is a CONTINUUM theory as well...

...

If semantics are in play, I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of the above...

The rejection of a negative, in logical terms, is not the equivalent of the affirmation of a positive.  Every double negative implies a positive (yes, I see that you used this language specifically but bear with me for a moment), but qualitatively is much different. T

Saying that "there are no noncontinuum theories of EM" really, really is not "... a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory."

(Example difference: saying there are no dead tuba players does not mean that any living people play tuba.)

Denying the existence of noncontinuum em theories is importantly different from affirming their existence-- so to treat Lin's post in the reconjugated "all em theories are Continuum theories but some theories of momentum are not, in open vacuums, trested as continuous" would be much closer to the truth. But Lin stated such in his original post so I don't think there is any issue.

As a side note, doctor, if you would like I can dredge up passages where Einstein says that the lack of aether constitutes the weakest part of SR, and believed that lack indicated analytical flaws but accurate description.  For the most part I believe he concluded that sciences would later discover an observable spacetime medium.  That one exists he believed on philosophical premises.

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #51 on: 12/26/2015 06:20 pm »
Lin, a poster has interjected, that engages in semantics (no problem with that, as he/she makes my point of your double negative statement admitting more than one possibility and readily admits <<If semantics are in play>>) but she/he does not  address the mathematics involved in your paper, that make your statement clear (to me at least).

Please clarify whether you agree that the electromagnetic equations you used (4-1 and 4-2) describe continuous E and B fields, as I stated and interpreted your statement << there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>.   (*)

__________
(*) Obviously they must deal with continuous fields, otherwise the gradient term ▽∙T  in equation 4-1 of your paper would be undefined ! The poster addressing semantics obviously misses this mathematical point  in your paper (as a spatial derivative cannot be defined for a spatially discontinuous field, as known from elementary Calculus).
« Last Edit: 12/26/2015 06:48 pm by Rodal »

#### oliverio

• Member
• Posts: 86
• Liked: 25
• Likes Given: 2
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #52 on: 12/26/2015 08:13 pm »
I didn't mean to interject, I took it to be a public discussion. Rather my intent was to chime in on a nuance of Lin's statement that may have been missed.  I too interpret him to define the em field as continuous...

As a sidenote, it is perfectly easy to define a rate of change for a discontinuous space (as opposed to a derivative of continuous change). If I interpret Lin correctly he is alleging that for an em force imparting classical momentum in open space, we should continue this in a noncontinuous fashion, thus arising the mismatched force term from the continuous field.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2015 08:15 pm by oliverio »

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #53 on: 12/27/2015 12:17 am »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
This statement is a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory.

But then, you appear to go back, as you state

<< So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law>>

1) The equations you are using for Electromagnetism 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations
2) Maxwell conceived those equations as being contained in a continuous aether (a medium with finite modulus of elasticity, NOT with infinite modulus of elasticity)
3) Einstein showed that there was no aether.  He eventually replaced the aether with a continuous gravitational field that permeates the whole Universe.  The theory of General Relativity is a CONTINUUM theory as well
4) The Quantum Vacuum is continuous
5) You have to use Cauchy's generalization of Newton's law, that contains the stress gradient, because the Newton's law you are using in your paper is a simplification, that neglects deformation of the continuum.  The Newton's law that you are using assumed INFINITE modulus of elasticity.  There is no medium in the Universe with an infinite modulus of elasticity.  The Newton's law F = ma you are using is a simplification used in elementary classes, that completely neglects the stress gradient.  The stress gradient is not zero in general, because all mediums are deformable.  You must use the stress gradient in your discussion of Newton's law.

When you discuss Newton's law without including the stress gradient you are discussing an unreal medium that has no stress gradient and which is not deformable.  Concerning the Quantum Vacuum see Paul Dirac's paper.

What is the continuum(medium) in vacuum for Newton's law?

Newton's law think vacuum is empty, so Newton's law can not use vacuum as continuum. But electromagnetism think vacuum is not empty, so electromagnetism can use vacuum as continuum.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
I mean electromagnetism is always Continuum Mechanics theory, because vacuum is every where in the universe(even in water or air).

In vacuum, Newton's law has no continuum, but electromagnetism has(the vacuum). That's why in vacuum  Newton's law use  the simplified version equation, but electromagnetism equation use Continuum Mechanics version. It is obviously that my drive is running in vacuum, you can't ignore that.

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #54 on: 12/27/2015 12:35 am »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
This statement is a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory.

But then, you appear to go back, as you state

<< So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law>>

1) The equations you are using for Electromagnetism 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations
2) Maxwell conceived those equations as being contained in a continuous aether (a medium with finite modulus of elasticity, NOT with infinite modulus of elasticity)
3) Einstein showed that there was no aether.  He eventually replaced the aether with a continuous gravitational field that permeates the whole Universe.  The theory of General Relativity is a CONTINUUM theory as well
4) The Quantum Vacuum is continuous
5) You have to use Cauchy's generalization of Newton's law, that contains the stress gradient, because the Newton's law you are using in your paper is a simplification, that neglects deformation of the continuum.  The Newton's law that you are using assumed INFINITE modulus of elasticity.  There is no medium in the Universe with an infinite modulus of elasticity.  The Newton's law F = ma you are using is a simplification used in elementary classes, that completely neglects the stress gradient.  The stress gradient is not zero in general, because all mediums are deformable.  You must use the stress gradient in your discussion of Newton's law.

When you discuss Newton's law without including the stress gradient you are discussing an unreal medium that has no stress gradient and which is not deformable.  Concerning the Quantum Vacuum see Paul Dirac's paper.

What is the continuum(medium) in vacuum for Newton's law?

Newton's law think vacuum is empty, so Newton's law can not use vacuum as continuum. But electromagnetism think vacuum is not empty, so electromagnetism can use vacuum as continuum.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
I mean electromagnetism is always Continuum Mechanics theory, because vacuum is every where in the universe(even in water or air).

In vacuum, Newton's law has no continuum, but electromagnetism has(the vacuum). That's why in vacuum  Newton's law use  the simplified version equation, but electromagnetism equation use Continuum Mechanics version. It is obviously that my drive is running in vacuum, you can't ignore that.

It is the Dirac sea, as I have stated in previous comments, or the Supefluid vacuum theory in today's terms.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06763

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/

« Last Edit: 12/27/2015 12:53 am by Rodal »

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #55 on: 12/27/2015 12:48 am »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
This statement is a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory.

But then, you appear to go back, as you state

<< So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law>>

1) The equations you are using for Electromagnetism 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations
2) Maxwell conceived those equations as being contained in a continuous aether (a medium with finite modulus of elasticity, NOT with infinite modulus of elasticity)
3) Einstein showed that there was no aether.  He eventually replaced the aether with a continuous gravitational field that permeates the whole Universe.  The theory of General Relativity is a CONTINUUM theory as well
4) The Quantum Vacuum is continuous
5) You have to use Cauchy's generalization of Newton's law, that contains the stress gradient, because the Newton's law you are using in your paper is a simplification, that neglects deformation of the continuum.  The Newton's law that you are using assumed INFINITE modulus of elasticity.  There is no medium in the Universe with an infinite modulus of elasticity.  The Newton's law F = ma you are using is a simplification used in elementary classes, that completely neglects the stress gradient.  The stress gradient is not zero in general, because all mediums are deformable.  You must use the stress gradient in your discussion of Newton's law.

When you discuss Newton's law without including the stress gradient you are discussing an unreal medium that has no stress gradient and which is not deformable.  Concerning the Quantum Vacuum see Paul Dirac's paper.

What is the continuum(medium) in vacuum for Newton's law?

Newton's law think vacuum is empty, so Newton's law can not use vacuum as continuum. But electromagnetism think vacuum is not empty, so electromagnetism can use vacuum as continuum.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
I mean electromagnetism is always Continuum Mechanics theory, because vacuum is every where in the universe(even in water or air).

In vacuum, Newton's law has no continuum, but electromagnetism has(the vacuum). That's why in vacuum  Newton's law use  the simplified version equation, but electromagnetism equation use Continuum Mechanics version. It is obviously that my drive is running in vacuum, you can't ignore that.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06763

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/

Sorry, Rodal. I tired of explanation. Is the Superfluid Vacuum a Newton's theory? When did Newton say that vacuum is superfluid?
« Last Edit: 12/27/2015 12:53 am by ZhixianLin »

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #56 on: 12/27/2015 12:56 am »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
This statement is a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory.

But then, you appear to go back, as you state

<< So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law>>

1) The equations you are using for Electromagnetism 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations
2) Maxwell conceived those equations as being contained in a continuous aether (a medium with finite modulus of elasticity, NOT with infinite modulus of elasticity)
3) Einstein showed that there was no aether.  He eventually replaced the aether with a continuous gravitational field that permeates the whole Universe.  The theory of General Relativity is a CONTINUUM theory as well
4) The Quantum Vacuum is continuous
5) You have to use Cauchy's generalization of Newton's law, that contains the stress gradient, because the Newton's law you are using in your paper is a simplification, that neglects deformation of the continuum.  The Newton's law that you are using assumed INFINITE modulus of elasticity.  There is no medium in the Universe with an infinite modulus of elasticity.  The Newton's law F = ma you are using is a simplification used in elementary classes, that completely neglects the stress gradient.  The stress gradient is not zero in general, because all mediums are deformable.  You must use the stress gradient in your discussion of Newton's law.

When you discuss Newton's law without including the stress gradient you are discussing an unreal medium that has no stress gradient and which is not deformable.  Concerning the Quantum Vacuum see Paul Dirac's paper.

What is the continuum(medium) in vacuum for Newton's law?

Newton's law think vacuum is empty, so Newton's law can not use vacuum as continuum. But electromagnetism think vacuum is not empty, so electromagnetism can use vacuum as continuum.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
I mean electromagnetism is always Continuum Mechanics theory, because vacuum is every where in the universe(even in water or air).

In vacuum, Newton's law has no continuum, but electromagnetism has(the vacuum). That's why in vacuum  Newton's law use  the simplified version equation, but electromagnetism equation use Continuum Mechanics version. It is obviously that my drive is running in vacuum, you can't ignore that.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06763

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/

Sorry, Rodal. I tired of explanation. Is the Superfluid Vacuum a Newton's theory? When did Newton say that vacuum is superfluid?
There was no concept of the Supefluid vacuum at the time of Newton.  When bringing up Newton's law it is better to be done consistently, with today's knowledge and not with Newton's knowledge (Cauchy extended to defomable media Newton's concept).  During Maxwell's time (after Newton) the medium for electromagnetism was thought to be the aether, which was conceived as a material medium having a finite modulus of elasticity (it was NOT considered to be infinitely rigid).

The quantum vacuum as a fluid was first discussed by Nobel Prize winner Paul Dirac, as far as I know.

The most up-to-date theory on the vacuum as a fluid is the Superfluid vacuum theory.  Using the Superfluid vacuum theory as a foundation seems better to me than stating <<EWEFFT looks like a violation of Newton's Law, but it does not violate any principle of electromagnetism.>>.

In any case, as stated before it seems to me that your drive performance is too good to be believed  , and probably there is hidden momentum (not taken into account in the formulation) that would prevent it.

We have to find the missing "hidden momentum" that would make this (better than a photon rocket) performance impossible.

If we find the missing "hidden momentum" in your drive discussion, this discussion about the proper way to discuss Newton's law would become unnecessary and pointless.
« Last Edit: 12/27/2015 02:15 am by Rodal »

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #57 on: 12/27/2015 02:59 am »
...
I think the equation 4-1 also works under non-Continuum Mechanics, so the equation 4-4 should also be non-Continuum Mechanics. I am comparing them all under non-Continuum Mechanics. The comparison is  in order to prove that momentum can be not conserved. If I change the equation 4-4 to Continuum Mechanics form, then how can I prove momentum can be not conserved?

And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations, because they are electromagnetic (Maxwell) equations for continuum fields (the E and B fields, and the stress tensor T are defined for a continua).  Therefore, the generalized form of Newton's law for deformable continuum media should be used instead of the simplified version assuming infinitely rigid non-deformable objects.

As to your final question <<And if my design works, then finally we have to acknowledge that momentum can be not conserved. So why don't we just declare that momentum can be not conserved first?>> that is quite a conundrum isn't it?

So at the moment I am leaning that your design is too good to work, that there must be "hidden momentum" to cancel it, and we just have to find it

In fact, there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism. Because vacuum is every where in our universe, you can't find a place without vacuum. For Newton's Continuum Mechanics, it needs water, air or some other continuum. But in vacuum, there is no continuum for Newton's Continuum Mechanics. So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law.

Just because in vacuum electromagnetism must be Continuum Mechanics, but in vacuum there can not be Newton's Continuum Mechanics, and that's why electromagnetism is different with Newton's law.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
This statement is a double negative.  Double-negatives implies a positive statement: in this case you are stating that since there is not any non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism, that you are admitting the truth: that Maxwell's Electromagnetism is a Continuum theory.

But then, you appear to go back, as you state

<< So how can I use Newton's Continuum Mechanics in vacuum? In vacuum, we should just use Newton's second law>>

1) The equations you are using for Electromagnetism 4-1 and 4-2 are Continuum equations
2) Maxwell conceived those equations as being contained in a continuous aether (a medium with finite modulus of elasticity, NOT with infinite modulus of elasticity)
3) Einstein showed that there was no aether.  He eventually replaced the aether with a continuous gravitational field that permeates the whole Universe.  The theory of General Relativity is a CONTINUUM theory as well
4) The Quantum Vacuum is continuous
5) You have to use Cauchy's generalization of Newton's law, that contains the stress gradient, because the Newton's law you are using in your paper is a simplification, that neglects deformation of the continuum.  The Newton's law that you are using assumed INFINITE modulus of elasticity.  There is no medium in the Universe with an infinite modulus of elasticity.  The Newton's law F = ma you are using is a simplification used in elementary classes, that completely neglects the stress gradient.  The stress gradient is not zero in general, because all mediums are deformable.  You must use the stress gradient in your discussion of Newton's law.

When you discuss Newton's law without including the stress gradient you are discussing an unreal medium that has no stress gradient and which is not deformable.  Concerning the Quantum Vacuum see Paul Dirac's paper.

What is the continuum(medium) in vacuum for Newton's law?

Newton's law think vacuum is empty, so Newton's law can not use vacuum as continuum. But electromagnetism think vacuum is not empty, so electromagnetism can use vacuum as continuum.

<< there is no non-Continuum Mechanics for electromagnetism>>
I mean electromagnetism is always Continuum Mechanics theory, because vacuum is every where in the universe(even in water or air).

In vacuum, Newton's law has no continuum, but electromagnetism has(the vacuum). That's why in vacuum  Newton's law use  the simplified version equation, but electromagnetism equation use Continuum Mechanics version. It is obviously that my drive is running in vacuum, you can't ignore that.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06763

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/

Sorry, Rodal. I tired of explanation. Is the Superfluid Vacuum a Newton's theory? When did Newton say that vacuum is superfluid?
There was no concept of the Supefluid vacuum at the time of Newton.  When bringing up Newton's law it is better to be done consistently, with today's knowledge and not with Newton's knowledge (Cauchy extended to defomable media Newton's concept).  During Maxwell's time (after Newton) the medium for electromagnetism was thought to be the aether, which was conceived as a material medium having a finite modulus of elasticity (it was NOT considered to be infinitely rigid).

The quantum vacuum as a fluid was first discussed by Nobel Prize winner Paul Dirac, as far as I know.

The most up-to-date theory on the vacuum as a fluid is the Superfluid vacuum theory.  Using the Superfluid vacuum theory as a foundation seems better to me than stating <<EWEFFT looks like a violation of Newton's Law, but it does not violate any principle of electromagnetism.>>.

In any case, as stated before it seems to me that your drive performance is too good to be believed  , and probably there is hidden momentum (not taken into account in the formulation) that would prevent it.

We have to find the missing "hidden momentum" that would make this (better than a photon rocket) performance impossible.

If we find the missing "hidden momentum" in your drive discussion, this discussion about the proper way to discuss Newton's law would become unnecessary and pointless.

Hey, Rodal. Are you working in NASA?
"We have to find the missing", Who is that "We"?

I am comparing electromagnetism with Newton's theory, not comparing electromagnetism with other modern physics theory.

The "hidden momentum" should be in vacuum.

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6123
• Likes Given: 5477
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #58 on: 12/27/2015 03:03 am »
...Hey, Rodal. Are you working in NASA?
"We have to find the missing", Who is that "We"?

I am comparing electromagnetism with Newton's theory, not comparing electromagnetism with other modern physics theory.

The "hidden momentum" should be in vacuum.
By "we", I meant "you and I, and whoever else that reads this thread that is interested in whether your idea is possible".

To me the first step is trying to prove your theory wrong, by finding hidden momentum.

The immediate next step is to do an experiment and see what mother Nature has to say about it

« Last Edit: 12/27/2015 03:03 am by Rodal »

#### ZhixianLin

• Member
• Posts: 63
• China
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Wave Electric Field Force Thruster
« Reply #59 on: 12/27/2015 03:20 am »
...Hey, Rodal. Are you working in NASA?
"We have to find the missing", Who is that "We"?

I am comparing electromagnetism with Newton's theory, not comparing electromagnetism with other modern physics theory.

The "hidden momentum" should be in vacuum.
By "we", I meant "you and I, and whoever else that reads this thread that is interested in whether your idea is possible".

To me the first step is trying to prove your theory wrong, by finding hidden momentum.

The immediate next step is to do an experiment and see what mother Nature has to say about it

I am not finding.
If you are not in NASA, then where can you find resource to do experiment?

Tags: