-
#2060 by SeeShells on 27 Oct, 2016 02:54
-
What drives human achievement? The dreams of something better. Dreams are what we're made of, dreams are what define us, what enable us to take that extra step, that illogical or logical leap in intuition that just might work. I'll never chide someone for dreaming. I applaud....
Todd
We are witnessing the development of your theory in real time, like a reality show
(interesting to watch 
)
My old Electronics teacher told me; "Michelle, we are entering into a golden age of mediocre conformity, never find yourself there". After nearly 50 years his words still ring truer than ever.
Shell -
#2061 by WarpTech on 27 Oct, 2016 02:59
-
Perhaps mode frequency is a key parameter. Will test this out next year. Displacement forces died out when my magnetron failed to approach resonance. U might want to keep this option open just in case...>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust?
Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596708#msg1596708
The only difference between what was written then and what we are discussing now, is that in the Damping Factor, I am now proposing a gradient in the decay time of the stored energy rather than a gradient in the frequency, since per Maxwell's equations, the mode frequency is a constant throughout the cavity. I'm working on the re-write for journal publication, which will streamline this whole presentation.
Good point Dave. Here are the equations of my theory with both the frequency and the decay time, expressed as variables of the "r" coordinate, distance from the apex of the cone. Hopefully (@meems) the connection to gravity is apparent now? It didn't really change the result, except the factor of 1/2 is gone now. I don't see where I made an error, but hopefully, at most it's a factor of 2.
Todd
Edit 2: Note, space-time metric line element ONLY applies inside the frustum.
Edit: Heck, why not write out a conformally flat space-time metric line element in terms of Q for the EM Drive, now that I have K in terms of Q...
"Welcome to The Q Continuum!"
-
#2062 by xyzzy on 27 Oct, 2016 03:57
-
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
So what is missing for the Mach Effect in the EM Drive is a force acting at omega. Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
That's not too difficult to arrange with a statically charged dielectric. Insert a low-loss (so as not to lower the Q) dielectric with surface electrodes and apply a DC voltage there. In a precharged (nonzero static electrostriction) dielectric the electrostrictive strain from the AC component will transition from 2*omega to 1*omega.
If the DC voltage component can reach the AC peak levels, the 2*omega electrostrictive term will disappear completely and fully convert into an 1*omega term instead.
Please note that (given the AC field strength in a high-Q cavity) full conversion would require the application of a seriously high DC charging voltage (!!! SAFETY !!!). -
#2063 by xyzzy on 27 Oct, 2016 04:09
-
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
That's not too difficult to arrange with a statically charged dielectric. Insert a low-loss (so as not to lower the Q) dielectric with surface electrodes and apply a DC voltage there. In a precharged (nonzero static electrostriction) dielectric the electrostrictive strain from the AC component will transition from 2*omega to 1*omega. If the DC voltage component can reach the AC peak levels, the 2*omega electrostrictive term will disappear completely and fully convert into an 1*omega term instead.
So what is missing for the Mach Effect in the EM Drive is a force acting at omega. Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
P.S. This 2*omega to 1*omega conversion effect can also happen unintentionally (to a smaller degree) if the dielectric gets charged by random stray electrons from gas ionization inside the cavity or if the dielectric happens to be inherently polarized.
It can be made explicit and in a larger magnitude by DC-precharging the dielectric explicitly through a charge electrode on the dielectric surface. -
#2064 by meems on 27 Oct, 2016 10:02
-
Quote from: WarpTech
>Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
>In the Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, [1] gravity results from a loss of power in a quantum oscillator, caused by a gradient in the relative Damping Factor. This paper demonstrates that the EM Drive theory of operation, may be analogous to a man-made gravitational field gradient, inside the frustm.
Ok I see now why I couldn't understand Rodal's and Warp's exchanges.
> invents wild new theory of gravity
> assert that an unknown phenomena is due to creating its own gravity via this new theory of gravity, even though by conventional theory it has nothing to do with gravity
So not only are you trying to explain an unexplained thrust phenomena, you've also trying to explain gravity, which has never been explained despite millions of man hours spent on it over hundreds of years.
Shame that for the last 200 years, scientists didn't approach every new phenomena like this. /sarc
As a new member to the forum I have to balance being nice vs stating the truth as I see it : So far I've been nice, but now I have to say this :
WarpTech's approach to explaining emdrive is profoundly unprincipled. Mixing 2 completely unrelated unexplained parts of physics : emdrive thrust , and gravity ; and trying to explain them both at the same time just stinks of the unholy culture of string theory, super string theory and m-theory - that is : trying to explain everything in one go ; all now widely excepted to have been an absolute waste of time.
Its a grab all and explain all attempt in an effort to be a super-Einstein, to create a universal theory, and is diametrically opposed to a sensible scientific protocol : divide and conquer \ try to avoid tangling things up.
Cooking up mad theories that hoover up unrelated phenomena and try to explain them all at the same time in a vain attempt to be a superstar has been a plague in the theoretical physics community, holding it back since WW2.
I'm aware of internet forum culture that has grown in the last 15 year. That is : if you have lots of posts then you are a PhD and very wise, but if you have only a dozen posts, you are considered a teenager at school. In fact I'm old, have a BSc in physics and have maintained an interest in physics all my life.
Board admins should allow a degree of liberty for members to discuss a new theory, but mixing gravity and emdrive into a mad theory should trigger a red-card by any standard. That it doesn't is just indicative of the NASA \ string theory culture of allowing mad theory to flourish around any and every unexplained physics. Its almost like the contrary is true : you'll get banned or ignored if you DON'T put forward a mad theory. If I was board admin I would not allow such mad theories here.
bah. I hope Rodal's theory isn't as mad as Warp's.
Let's have it Rodal. -
#2065 by Gilbertdrive on 27 Oct, 2016 11:08
-
Quote from: WarpTech
>Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
>In the Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, [1] gravity results from a loss of power in a quantum oscillator, caused by a gradient in the relative Damping Factor. This paper demonstrates that the EM Drive theory of operation, may be analogous to a man-made gravitational field gradient, inside the frustm.
Ok I see now why I couldn't understand Rodal's and Warp's exchanges.
> invents wild new theory of gravity
> assert that an unknown phenomena is due to creating its own gravity via this new theory of gravity, even though by conventional theory it has nothing to do with gravity
So not only are you trying to explain an unexplained thrust phenomena, you've also trying to explain gravity, which has never been explained despite millions of man hours spent on it over hundreds of years.
Shame that for the last 200 years, scientists didn't approach every new phenomena like this. /sarc
As a new member to the forum I have to balance being nice vs stating the truth as I see it : So far I've been nice, but now I have to say this :
WarpTech's approach to explaining emdrive is profoundly unprincipled. Mixing 2 completely unrelated unexplained parts of physics : emdrive thrust , and gravity ; and trying to explain them both at the same time just stinks of the unholy culture of string theory, super string theory and m-theory - that is : trying to explain everything in one go ; all now widely excepted to have been an absolute waste of time.
Its a grab all and explain all attempt in an effort to be a super-Einstein, to create a universal theory, and is diametrically opposed to a sensible scientific protocol : divide and conquer \ try to avoid tangling things up.
Cooking up mad theories that hoover up unrelated phenomena and try to explain them all at the same time in a vain attempt to be a superstar has been a plague in the theoretical physics community, holding it back since WW2.
I'm aware of internet forum culture that has grown in the last 15 year. That is : if you have lots of posts then you are a PhD and very wise, but if you have only a dozen posts, you are considered a teenager at school. In fact I'm old, have a BSc in physics and have maintained an interest in physics all my life.
Board admins should allow a degree of liberty for members to discuss a new theory, but mixing gravity and emdrive into a mad theory should trigger a red-card by any standard. That it doesn't is just indicative of the NASA \ string theory culture of allowing mad theory to flourish around any and every unexplained physics. Its almost like the contrary is true : you'll get banned or ignored if you DON'T put forward a mad theory. If I was board admin I would not allow such mad theories here.
bah. I hope Rodal's theory isn't as mad as Warp's.
Let's have it Rodal.
So... thanks again, Chris Bergins, for making these discussions possible.
I don't have a general understanding of Todd's theory, that is Why I did not comment it for now, but I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
The gravity, among the fundamental interactions, allows interactions at the larger distances. As it was mentionned several times, there is already a propellantless way of accelerating a ship, actually used, : Gravity assist. That is why thinking about gravity is not unlogical.
MiHsC is also about gravity
When trying to explain the Emdrive effect, thinking about gravity doesn't seem mad.
Also, the madness of a theory needs a constructive work to be evaluated. Hours of reflexion about the implications. It can not be quickly decided by an admin if a theory is mad
or not.QuoteSo not only are you trying to explain an unexplained thrust phenomena, you've also trying to explain gravity, which has never been explained despite millions of man hours spent on it over hundreds of years.
Shame that for the last 200 years, scientists didn't approach every new phenomena like this. /sarc
They did not have any experiment about the emdrive. New experiments give new ideas. That does not means that Todd pretends to be more clever than the scientists of the 200 last years. He just try to make a theory that fits with new observations. That is not a shame if the scientist that did not have these observations did not make fitting theories.
Otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that on these threads, many of us are mad scientists.
Mad theorists, and mad experimenters.
Mouhahahaha.
P.S. Stay safe.
-
#2066 by meems on 27 Oct, 2016 12:11
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me. -
#2067 by Stormbringer on 27 Oct, 2016 12:37
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
not always. For a counter example i give you this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110591-physics-tweak-solves-five-of-the-biggest-problems-in-one-go/ -
#2068 by PotomacNeuron on 27 Oct, 2016 12:40
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
Gravity came into play because Roger Shawyer once said his test apparatus needed an initial acceleration to generate thrust (But I think what happened was he overcame static friction (yes there is static friction in air bearing)). Then people realized that acceleration could not be differentiated from gravity according to general relativity. Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive. That is the observation I made to this matter. Hope it helps. -
#2069 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 13:03
-
Here's some theory I think is central to emdrive :
Why doesn't a 100 Watt light torch give a reaction force ( kick back ) similar to a mechanical device with a power of 100 Watts?
An Excellent observation! You think like an engineer
An example of mechanical 100 Watt thruster is : A man throwing 2kg mass projectiles...accelerate the man in the opposite direction...
But the kickback from 100 W light torch would be effectively zero by comparison.
Let's think about it this way; you've got a spring with a kilo-joule of energy, you weigh 100kg, you stand on it (using earth as a ballast) and let'r go, and spring-up 1 meter (hope I the math's right). Virtually all the 1kg of energy you absorb, first accelerating to a velocity then attaining a higher gravitational potential with the 1kj of energy.
Now you're in space, you push against a similar 100kg mass as yourself with the 1kj spring, accelerating to (1/2 of 2*sqrt 20 ) m/s, the momentum divided evenly between yourself and the ballast mass.
If you use a very small ballast mass, say from a bullet in a pistol, the bullet flies away with almost all the KE (kinetic energy) and you get only a little of it.
But wait! Now you use a rifle, with a very long, long barrel, such that the recoil accelerates you a long, long time, rather than the short time from the pistol. Since you are recoiling backwards with respect to the bullet, it exits (from an observes rest frame relative to your initial state) at a lower velocity. You absorb more KE, attaining a higher velocity.
Thus, perhaps clever hacks can give us thrust higher than a photon rocket...only a tiny fraction of the energy in light is as mechanical energy \ momentum. Most of it is stored in a EM wave which is lateral to its motion. In other words, a photon is like a thrown grenade, its kinetic energy is insignificant in comparison to its stored potential energy.
EM waves are not like "grenades". Both the EM fields and momentum are consequences of their unity of identity as a photon....a light torch does not give a significant kickback, and why an object being exposed to a light doesn't experience a significant kickback. Energy conversion between mechanical and light energy is lateral to the direction of travel of the light.
When an atom emits a photon, or an antenna a pulse of EM, there is a recoil. But think of the pistol and rifle. The momentum transfer depends on refractive index and geometry, as well as mass of the emitter, and the greater the doppler/red-shift of the photon relative to the emitter, the greater the recoil velocity and propulsive efficiency.
It would be interesting to do an EM sim of an accelerating horn-antenna (a very, very, very long antenna) and find out how much efficiency you can get from a mere "photon rocket"....
Well that's the end of this line of thought. Its not specific to emdrive. Its just a theory on how to convert light into motion, without using a propellent. It maybe that emdrive is somehow using this theory.
Indeed. I recommend studying waveguides, resonant cavities, with an eye towards understanding how a high-Q standing wave is like effective mass, how the group velocity in a slow-traveling standing-wave carries this effective mass with higher propulsive efficiency. How dispersion multiplies doppler shift, enabling the extraction of more energy.
Then Brillouin scattering; if the cavity is being vibrated, more energy can be extracted due to increased doppler shift.
Interesting how Shawyer's designs use dispersion and are mounted on springs, and he uses actuators, which may be doing more than merely tuning the cavity.
Dissipation is necessary to get rid of the lower sideband; it's the exhaust (because the EM drive is a thermally open-system). Without dissipation, the slow-wave and effective mass with just slosh back & forth.
-
#2070 by SeeShells on 27 Oct, 2016 13:05
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I remember correctly Todd is a fine engineer and a VP of a very large company.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
As an engineer you can look to the old hack of solving by the divide and conquer method, which works almost all the time... but not all. Why would I know this? 50 years of engineering, a couple dozen patents and president/CEO of 4 different and successful businesses. Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Tools come in many different sizes and some people are simply ambidextrous and can look at more than one problem at a time. As a matter of fact some of the finest engineers and even physicists I've known can look at a multi-leveled problem and not only keep all the parts separate to solve but see the interconnections between them to solve the larger problem. I'll say this is a fine gift to have.
This Drive is not a single problem to solve, it consists of hundreds of individual "problems" to solve and you must be able to look at the whole picture all at once and this includes the theories as well.
Shell -
#2071 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 13:15
-
...
I think this problem does have an all mechanical anology : converting the energy of bullets into slow coherent motion; this may give us insight into emdrive...
Yet there is a big difference - the speed of light is always C. Relativity.... The problem of collisions at high energy momentum ratio
...
Dough Boulder
One simple improvement it to make the boulder soft, like dough. This way, at least the bullet's energy isn't used to particlize and scatter the bullet or the boulder. The bullet decelerates slowly and comes to rest intact.
The long barrel, the horn antenna or dispersive waveguide...A slightly different, more hypothetical and fanciful idea would be to have the bullet collide sequentially with gradually slower moving small objects.
A thought I've had is using coupled resonators in a Chebyshev configuration; maximum ripple/group delay and dispersion....Converting this analogy over to emdrive : step 2/2
So can something like this be happening in the emdrive cavity? Yes.
Starting with lightwaves ( the bullets ), we need to have something that will act as the set of sequentially slower moving objects. There is only one object that can be : electrons - yes a cavity full of microwaves with conductor walls will have a few loose electrons in it- electron plasma. Starting at one end of the cavity, light is passing its energy quite efficiently onto fast high energy electrons, which pass on kinetic energy to low energy electrons, until the lowest energy electrons pass on KE to one of the end plates, which absorbs the energy more efficiently as KE than if it was just being hit with the unaltered light ( initial high speed bullets ).
Lab experimenters may want to look for a gradient in electron energy within the cavity.
How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle? -
#2072 by meems on 27 Oct, 2016 13:15
-
> For a counter example i give you this: SMASH
>Thinking an untested theory can be a counter example to anything real
Isn't there just a slight, tingling doubt somewhere in back of your mind, or are you sure you've just circumvented a rule of science and engineering thats as old as history?
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god. -
#2073 by Notsosureofit on 27 Oct, 2016 13:18
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
not always. For a counter example i give you this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110591-physics-tweak-solves-five-of-the-biggest-problems-in-one-go/
Interesting: that would give a max photon coupling between 12 to 48GHz to an axion mass of 50 to 200 micro-eV. -
#2074 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 13:22
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look. -
#2075 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 13:29
-
> invents wild new theory of gravity
Chill and be nice please. You may actually learn a few things. I've learned an lot from folks while I roll my eyes and chuckle, and with some, cry because they make immense, laudable efforts in vain. But I'm often wrong about many things too, so I'm polite. Most of the time. -
#2076 by meems on 27 Oct, 2016 13:31
-
>How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle?
I don't understand how that would work independently of the cavity electron plasma, they are 2 aspects of the same mechanism. The cavity electrons are hit by radiation, then these electrons knock into the big end plate. And why would there be a gradient in radiation pressure if the radiation wasn't being absorbed by electrons?
So yes, we can talk about a radiation pressure gradient, but unless you can say why this wouldn't involve the cavity electron plasma, I think its best to refer to the electrons. Results from the cavity readings show electron current is being driven into the big end plate - presumably by radiation pressure.
>Chill and be nice please.
Sure. I'm happy to leave it alone. I accept its just me, everyone else likes Warp's theory.
> Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Emdrive science is being led by experimenters like yourself SeaShells, not by the theorists. Its you that have humiliated them, not the other way round. According to Shawyer, theorists have had 60 years to master emdrive theory, instead for the most part they said it couldn't be done. Don't be quick to attribute be-dazzlement by their maths to their being smarter than you. -
#2077 by kaublezw on 27 Oct, 2016 13:34
-
What happens when I place my hand behind the large end of a super conducting EmDrive when it's turned on? Will I feel a force? If so, in which direction?
Has anybody seen Wal Thornhill's presentation on gravity in which he proposes that gravity is caused by the small internal deformation of the atoms in a gravitational field making them tiny dipoles?
Wild idea: Could it be that the microwaves are deforming the copper atoms on the larger plate such that they are forming tiny dipoles where the negative side is pointing out and the positive side is pointing in the chamber?
If this were true then I should feel an attractive force when I place my hand behind a fixed super-conducting EmDrive that's turned on because the atoms in my hand along with the air molecules would synchronize with the induced dipoles of the chamber.
-
#2078 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 13:40
-
...
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
Please. I like you're reasoning. If you offend believers, you'll cause trouble and get censored and perhaps leave in a huff as others have. But feel free to message me, and we'll share some laughs.
When my email works again, that is, its broke now
-
#2079 by SeeShells on 27 Oct, 2016 13:43
-
> For a counter example i give you this: SMASH
We have been smashing, splitting and dividing things for longer than I can remember.
>Thinking an untested theory can be a counter example to anything real
Isn't there just a slight, tingling doubt somewhere in back of your mind, or are you sure you've just circumvented a rule of science and engineering thats as old as history?
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
It is our nature to do so. We've gotten better at it although it's still breaking them up to see what makes them work.
I'm sure as our ancestors smashed up bit of rocks to understand how they worked and mashed fingers in the doing so. They eventually made fire and were able to slice up and cook the steaks they just made from the bison they slayed. It wasn't a single problem in just getting a sharp rock it was a whole list of linked problems to feed that hungry tummy.
One thing at a time? Ha! You're not old enough to remember smashed fingers are you?
Best,
Shell
(interesting to watch 
)
or not.
