-
#2360 by kaublezw on 04 Nov, 2016 18:58
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend. -
#2361 by RotoSequence on 04 Nov, 2016 19:24
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time warping. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical world called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the world called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equation are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
I'd refer to this earlier exchange by Rodal and Warptech:...
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack.
The great polymath John von Neumann famously told Claude Shannon at MIT to use "entropy" as the name for his new uncertainty function:Quote from: John von NeumannYou should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.
in Reflections : Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner (1967), p. 261
-
#2362 by Star One on 04 Nov, 2016 20:49
-
Talking of LENR here is a pretty recent New Scientist article about the current state of play.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/amp/?client=safari -
#2363 by WarpTech on 04 Nov, 2016 23:18
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Finally! Someone who sees the light.
You must be an engineer.
It has always been understood that General Relativity is a classical "approximation" of an unknown Quantum theory of gravity. I offer a quantum theory of gravity, consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics. It results in the exact same solutions that fit all the known, experimental data but most GR theorists would rather try to quantize an unobservable "space-time" manifold, than truly understand the behavior of the matter they observe. They invest so much effort into learning the mathematics that they are reluctant to consider anything else, except GR.
One would think that a black hole will curve space-time as much as it can be curved. Right? And we use the same Schwarzschild solution to describe the gravitational field around the Earth, and tell everyone that gravity is due to space-time curvature. However, what most don't know is that the Schwarzschild solution is as flat as the Minkowski solution. Space-time is not "really" curved at all, it is "Conformally Flat". Which means, it's the same flat Minkowski metric, but it is "scaled" by a constant factor at each gravitational potential (altitude).
So those who believe that gravity can only be described as space-time curvature, need to open their minds and see that this is just ONE interpretation of the experimental data. The Geometrical approach to gravity is an approximation, as is the Polarizable vacuum approach. It holds true for what we can measure to date, but it is not the Quantum mechanical mechanism, the "nuts and bolts" so to speak, of how gravity actually affects matter. This, is best described for engineering purposes as, "Radiative Damping" or an "attenuation (Neper) frequency" acting on the wave functions.
The "fluctuation-dissipation" relationship is formally required for the stability of atoms in QED, in the Standard Model. it is built in. I'm not changing anything. The main stream physics community does not understand what happens when these two are not in perfect equilibrium, because GR has led them all bemused, down the wrong rabbit hole.
-
#2364 by RotoSequence on 04 Nov, 2016 23:29
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Finally! Someone who sees the light. You must be an engineer.
It has always been understood that General Relativity is a classical "approximation" of an unknown Quantum theory of gravity. I offer a quantum theory of gravity, consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics. It results in the exact same solutions that fit all the known, experimental data but most GR theorists would rather try to quantize an unobservable "space-time" manifold, than truly understand the behavior of the matter they observe. They invest so much effort into learning the mathematics that they are reluctant to consider anything else, except GR.
One would think that a black hole will curve space-time as much as it can be curved. Right? And we use the same Schwarzschild solution to describe the gravitational field around the Earth, and tell everyone that gravity is due to space-time curvature. However, what most don't know is that the Schwarzschild solution is as flat as the Minkowski solution. Space-time is not "really" curved at all, it is "Conformally Flat". Which means, it's the same flat Minkowski metric, but it is "scaled" by a constant factor at each gravitational potential (altitude).
So those who believe that gravity can only be described as space-time curvature, need to open their minds and see that this is just ONE interpretation of the experimental data. The Geometrical approach to gravity is an approximation, as is the Polarizable vacuum approach. It holds true for what we can measure to date, but it is not the Quantum mechanical mechanism, the "nuts and bolts" so to speak, of how gravity actually affects matter. This, is best described for engineering purposes as, "Radiative Damping" or an "attenuation (Neper) frequency" acting on the wave functions.
The "fluctuation-dissipation" relationship is formally required for the stability of atoms in QED, in the Standard Model. it is built in. I'm not changing anything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the radiative dampening theory is that powerful, shouldn't you be able to solve what's going on past the Event Horizon of a black hole?The main stream physics community does not understand what happens when these two are not in perfect equilibrium, because GR has led them all bemused, down the wrong rabbit hole.
"Give the people what they want, and they'll come." -
#2365 by WarpTech on 05 Nov, 2016 00:02
-
...
So those who believe that gravity can only be described as space-time curvature, need to open their minds and see that this is just ONE interpretation of the experimental data. The Geometrical approach to gravity is an approximation, as is the Polarizable vacuum approach. It holds true for what we can measure to date, but it is not the Quantum mechanical mechanism, the "nuts and bolts" so to speak, of how gravity actually affects matter. This, is best described for engineering purposes as, "Radiative Damping" or an "attenuation (Neper) frequency" acting on the wave functions.
The "fluctuation-dissipation" relationship is formally required for the stability of atoms in QED, in the Standard Model. it is built in. I'm not changing anything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the radiative dampening theory is that powerful, shouldn't you be able to solve what's going on past the Event Horizon of a black hole?The main stream physics community does not understand what happens when these two are not in perfect equilibrium, because GR has led them all bemused, down the wrong rabbit hole.
"Give the people what they want, and they'll come."
If "Critically Damped" is ς2=Rs/R = 1, then anything past the event horizon is simply "Over damped". Meaning, the amplitude exponentially decays to zero. What else would you expect?
In terms of the EM drive, this is the situation you have when your input source does not have enough power to overcome the losses in the cavity.
-
#2366 by OnlyMe on 05 Nov, 2016 00:03
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
I don't believe that the use of terms like space-time and curvature is a problem in discussions between most individuals with a solid background in the underlying theory.
I am pretty sure that for posters like Dr. Rodal, WarpTech, notsosureofit and many others I am certain, the exact meaning of those terms is not the same as it often seems they are in many open public discussions. The curvature of space-time, curvature and space-time itself are labels within the context of a more comprehensive geometric model that describes the tidal effects of gravitation, that begins with general relativity. The terms space-time and curvature are not the observables in nature. The tidal effect of garvitation is the observable. The rest is how we do our best to describe what we can observe.
The real problem is that very often in open discussions not everyone has the same or even similar backgrounds in the underlying theoretical model(s). It is true that words usually have exact meanings, but in the case of discussions including terms like the curvature of space-time, unless one has an understanding of the underlying geometry and math, the exact meaning is often misunderstood.
I once told WarpTech that I liked the way he thinks. Not because I am convinced that his theory is the answer, but because in reading his posts it seems clear to me that.., even though it is currently unobservable, he is attempting to describe how resonant microwaves interact with the frustum, to produce thrust... And then he defines an observable or observable components, and attempts to describe an underlying geometry/theory consistent with existing scientific understanding.
BTW the issue extends far beyond just those terms. When you get down to brass tacks our fundamental definitions and understanding of CoM is rooted in classical Newtonian mechanics, relativistically modified within the context of special relativity, while the frontier of the science we are discussing is pushing the limits of the environment that what we think of as the basic laws of physics, were framed and formed. -
#2367 by M.LeBel on 05 Nov, 2016 03:02
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Physics is the study of our relationship with our reality. In that sense, GR is O.K. as a descriptive context for observed physical events. You are right, space is just a concept. But physics cannot say what makes up the universe. Something or "stuff" makes the universe. Because maths are based on logic and maths are unreasonably effective in describing the behavior of the universe ... then the universe works on (simple) principles of logic. Such a system operational on logic can afford that there be only one type of stuff. Everything points to a sort of time process (dynamical) being that stuff. In the words of Bill Unruh ... " gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place.."
But, you have to remember that asking questions about the stuff of the universe belongs to metaphysics, NOT to physics. This is the essential part that is left for us to understand about the universe and it is off limit to physics.
My essay on the subject is attached. Text supplied with my poster presentation at the 2016 Science of Time conference. (No, it was not published into the proceedings ... deemed off topic... Most other where about atomic clocks, leap second, sundials, time standards etc. )
Marcel,
-
#2368 by ThinkerX on 05 Nov, 2016 03:36
-
From 'Space Ghost 1962'Quote
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.QuoteAm referring to own experience of non-Lorenz force explainable hundred newton "jumps" in superconducting magnets intended for an accelerator, in the environment of a vacuum microwave cavity. Won't detail it further. Limits.
Google search for 'anomalous behavior SSC magnets' turned up multiple articles, mostly dating to 1992-94.
Abstract from one of the more recent: (unable to link)QuoteSeveral SSC S-cm-apenure, IS-m-Iong dipole magnet prototypes exhibit anomalous behavior of their magnetic field harmonics during current ramps at 4 Ns. The anomalies cease when the ramp is stopped and the current is held constant. The magnets also exhibit a dramatic degradation of their quench current as a function of ramp rate, as well as large AC-Iosses. After reviewing the AC-performance of the anomalous magnets, we develop a model of cable eddy currents, which can simulate the observed field behavior and the measured AClosses, and which is consistent with the quench start localization of the high ramp-rate quenches.
Several others in the same vein. Over my head. Relevant? -
#2369 by Star One on 05 Nov, 2016 08:14
-
Talking of LENR here is a pretty recent New Scientist article about the current state of play.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/amp/?client=safari
We have a LENR thread (several). This is OT here.
I am not the one who brought the topic up on this thread initially. -
#2370 by Flyby on 05 Nov, 2016 08:45
-
......
While I certainly do not qualify as a person who understands the nature of curved space-time, I always had a sense that the illustrations, used to explain the space-time curvature, were utterly misleading. There is something non-consistent in those pictures, where they represent spacetime as a planar "thing", with the space (3dimentional) reduced to 1 dimension, time as another and the gravity as Z axis, causing a gravity well/pit.
The real problem is that very often in open discussions not everyone has the same or even similar backgrounds in the underlying theoretical model(s). It is true that words usually have exact meanings, but in the case of discussions including terms like the curvature of space-time, unless one has an understanding of the underlying geometry and math, the exact meaning is often misunderstood.
.....
Then you gave the earth and other stuff floating around, where suddenly those objects are considered in 3D again moving around on a 1 dimensional space... brrr...it misses consistency and it certainly doesn't relate to the reality around us.
besides, how to position the space time plane in relation to earth?now it is always depicted as on the XY plane, but turn the plane to XZ... what then? it just doesn't match up.
Such drawings are mental constructions, most probably constructed from a deeper mathematical understanding, but for any non-scientist who is not engaged deeply into the subject, these images are hugely deceptive and cultivate an understanding that is simply wrong...
The only thing such pictures do is establish that there is "some" relation between gravity and time,but also between time and space.
internally, I'm wrestling with such images for over 20 years now, but because I'm not a professional scientist, i let it be. Not much i can do about it, anyway.
I just wonder why such a deceptive image became so popular.
On the positive side it does make the complex interaction between space, time and gravity more "visual", but at the same time the model lost all reference to reality, the world around us....
[speculation]
what if... gravity was some sort of "density field" spread throughout the universe and that increases it's density locally through the presents of matter. What if matter experiences a drag while moving through that gravity field. An object circling the earth would experience an asymmetrical drag (ref gravity swimmer), continuously changing its trajectory into a circular path around the earth...
See it more like a very large fishtank where the density of water (=gravity) is changed by the matter floating in it.
And the way we constructed the notion of time is by measuring movement. From turning watch pointers based on springs, to oscillating crystals and even vibrating atoms, they all use movement to measure "time".
If movement (or the possibility to move)of what we call "matter" is slowed down, time slows down also. So, if gravity causes a drag on matter, an increase of gravity will increase drag, making it harder to move, hence our measurement/perception of time slows down. It is like an increased gravity acts like a stasis field...
So interesting question is then (in EMdrive context).... what's the relation between gravity and electromagnetism... but that's way, way above my modest level of understanding, i suppose..
[/speculation] -
#2371 by TheTraveller on 05 Nov, 2016 11:28
-
Interesting data plotting Cu and YBCO Rs curves vs freq at 77K and room temp, 300K.
Cu at room temp has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm and YBCO at 77k is as per my latest offer at 3uOhm at 3.85GHz.
Roger measured a Qu of 6.8x10^6 with his Experimental cryo EmDrive at 78uOhm at 3.83GHz at 77K.
My calculated specific force, based on that Qu was 41N/kWrf.
With YBCO, the Q scales linear as Rs values. So 78/3 = 26 x 6.8x10^6 = Qu of 1.8x10^8 for Roger's Experimental cryo thruster.
Force also scales linear with Qu so:
6.8x10^6 = 41N/kWrf
1.8x10^8 = 1,066N/kWrf or 109kg/kWrf for the Experimental cryo thruster, getting there.
Copper at room temp at 3.85GHz has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm, as attached or 2,667x higher Rs than the YBCO I was offered.
My Cu spherical end plate frustum has a Cu room temp Qu of 88k.
Coated with 3uOhm RS YBCO at 77K would be a Qu of 2.36x10^8 or a specific force of 1,066N/kWrf.
Drop the Freq from 3.85GHz to 2.45GHz and we have Rs of 3uOhm / ( 3.85/2.45)^2 = 1.2uOhm = Qu 5.9x10^8 = 2.780N/kWrf or 281kg/kWrf
-
#2372 by Chris Bergin on 05 Nov, 2016 16:11
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
-
#2373 by Bob012345 on 05 Nov, 2016 16:15
-
Interesting data plotting Cu and YBCO Rs curves vs freq at 77K and room temp, 300K.
Cu at room temp has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm and YBCO at 77k is as per my latest offer at 3uOhm at 3.85GHz.
Roger measured a Qu of 6.8x10^6 with his Experimental cryo EmDrive at 78uOhm at 3.83GHz at 77K.
My calculated specific force, based on that Qu was 41N/kWrf.
With YBCO, the Q scales linear as Rs values. So 78/3 = 26 x 6.8x10^6 = Qu of 1.8x10^8 for Roger's Experimental cryo thruster.
Force also scales linear with Qu so:
6.8x10^6 = 41N/kWrf
1.8x10^8 = 1,066N/kWrf or 109kg/kWrf for the Experimental cryo thruster, getting there.
Copper at room temp at 3.85GHz has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm, as attached or 2,667x higher Rs than the YBCO I was offered.
My Cu spherical end plate frustum has a Cu room temp Qu of 88k.
Coated with 3uOhm RS YBCO at 77K would be a Qu of 2.36x10^8 or a specific force of 1,066N/kWrf.
Drop the Freq from 3.85GHz to 2.45GHz and we have Rs of 3uOhm / ( 3.85/2.45)^2 = 1.2uOhm = Qu 5.9x10^8 = 2.780N/kWrf or 281kg/kWrf
You equate measuring the Q to knowing the force. I won't feel comfortable till Mr. Shawyer or someone says they measured the Q and the force separately and they follow the proper relation. Why can't someone simply say what force they measured with the superconducting cavity? High Q's aren't controversial. -
#2374 by Bob012345 on 05 Nov, 2016 16:22
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
Falling through a gravitational field does indeed involve an 'exhaust'. Think of the system as a whole, the object which is falling and the field with its source, a planet. There is a mutual interaction through the field and momentum is conserved. It's easier to imagine if gravity were repulsive where the ship and the planet could each be considered the others exhaust. But the principle is the same for attraction. -
#2375 by RotoSequence on 05 Nov, 2016 16:23
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
Well, that's disappointing, but completely understandable. -
#2376 by rfmwguy on 05 Nov, 2016 16:28
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
I understand Phil's frustration and current situation. Readers should understand NSFs position, however, this information is posted elsewhere, which I will not disclose out of respect for Chris and others.
My commentary on the information released is simply this: Its tough to have waited so long, knowing what I knew about my own testing and knowing a far more competent team was in the process of testing. While I did not know the details, I knew the team was diligent, dedicated and most capable. -
#2377 by supersubie on 05 Nov, 2016 16:33
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? Would be great to get his input into all of the insights he and the team gained whilst in the run up to releasing this paper. Contents of the paper seems very significant indeed!
-
#2378 by RotoSequence on 05 Nov, 2016 16:35
-
TheTraveller, very sorry to hear about your prostate cancer.
Good luck, and God Speed; even though we've had rather vigorous disputes about the nature of this subject, I thank you for what you've done in all of these threads.
-
#2379 by Bob012345 on 05 Nov, 2016 16:38
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
I missed it! Was it an answer to me about forces?
You must be an engineer.
Good luck, and God Speed; even though we've had rather vigorous disputes about the nature of this subject, I thank you for what you've done in all of these threads.
