-
#580 by flux_capacitor on 13 Sep, 2016 17:30
-
Someone posted this over Reddit:Quote
Because these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.
Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power? -
#581 by Bob012345 on 13 Sep, 2016 17:40
-
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Thanks. So you're saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body. -
#582 by StrongGR on 13 Sep, 2016 17:44
-
Someone posted this over Reddit:
QuoteBecause these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.
Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power?
These are correct questions but, until I do not provide numbers, an answer to them there is not. I am working on this. The point here is that what happens inside the cavity is a local effect driven by the density of energy of the e.m. that, due to the coupling with gravity, could modify in some unexpected way the Newton constant. This could be a game changer together with the geometrical set-up and the characteristics of the cavity. You should consider that these are completely new scenarios for general relativity and theories alike. -
#583 by StrongGR on 13 Sep, 2016 17:46
-
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.
Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it. -
#584 by Bob012345 on 13 Sep, 2016 18:05
-
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.
Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.
Ok, don't laugh at me but has anyone looked at the work of Jefimenko who related EM to gravity and derives some new, possibly useful effects? Thanks. -
#585 by Rodal on 13 Sep, 2016 19:23
-
...
What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?
A dielectric can increase thrust.
Strictly speaking, there is no thrust as such according to the analysis in your paper: where it is explained as a Brans-Dicke gravitational effect. When a spacecraft uses gravity assist (a slingslot or swing-by maneuver) to accelerate (altering the path and speed of a spacecraft), we don't call the change in speed as due to "thrust".
So perhaps this effect should more rigorously be denoted as <<A dielectric can increase the (Brans Dicke) gravity assist>> according to your paper.
------------------------
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing. At the time that Mariner 10 was launched (November 3, 1973, to fly by the planets Mercury and Venus) however, there was no hostility from the physics community to what NASA was doing, because the sling-shot maneuver and the effect of gravity was easy to explain.
The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small). -
#586 by Star One on 13 Sep, 2016 19:25
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
-
#587 by StrongGR on 13 Sep, 2016 19:28
-
...
What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?
A dielectric can increase thrust.
Strictly speaking, there is no thrust as such according to the analysis in your paper: where it is explained as a Brans-Dicke gravitational effect. When a spacecraft uses gravity assist (a slingslot or swing-by maneuver) to accelerate (altering the path and speed of a spacecraft), we don't call the change in speed as due to "thrust".
So perhaps this effect should more rigorously be denoted as <<A dielectric can increase the (Brans Dicke) gravity assist>> according to your paper.
------------------------
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing. The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small).
Indeed, you should take the previous formula for thrust and substitute the Newton constant obtained by the consistency equation. Both will depend on the dielectric constant of the medium inside the cavity. A rather involved relation indeed.
-
#588 by StrongGR on 13 Sep, 2016 19:32
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.
-
#589 by Star One on 13 Sep, 2016 19:35
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.
You scientists can certainly get fiery when big scientific issues are at debate.
But rather than weapons words become your missiles & no prisoners are taken. There seems a long history of such verbal sparring in the scientific world.
-
#590 by tchernik on 13 Sep, 2016 19:51
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.
I find it quite evocative that, after Michelson and Morley's experiment, studying light in specific contexts could bring another potential scientific revolution on this century.
Because anyone can object to minuscule thrust experiments, blaming it all to noise and sloppy experiments, but our abilities to measure light's interference with itself are much better than our skills to measure thrust, and the potential causes of certain light behaviors are much more restricted than experimental error. There are simply no known ways to mimic light warping caused by space warping/gravity in a vacuum.
Basically, if there are certain repeatable anomalous interference patterns, then it's almost certainly a real effect, even if the thrust is minuscule. -
#591 by Rodal on 13 Sep, 2016 20:32
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.Quote from: StrongGRinside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia. -
#592 by Star One on 13 Sep, 2016 21:48
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.Quote from: StrongGRinside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.
So it looks like the Mach theory may be the correct line to follow all the way along. -
#593 by Fugudaddy on 13 Sep, 2016 22:54
-
Just as a quick aside;
I've expressed this before but the truth of it is that this forum is still an amazing teaching tool about *science*.
How questions get asked, how skepticism and pointed analysis lead to better designed experiments, how collaboration and building on ideas happens...
And in this particular instance, there are things happening that we don't yet understand.
New Science and New Frontiers in human understanding is a real possibility. Still a small one, but growing in confidence it seems.
That s**t is exciting, yo.
Keep on with the amazing work, there's a bunch of us out here just watching with amazement and wonder.
-
#594 by dustinthewind on 13 Sep, 2016 23:55
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.Quote from: StrongGRinside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.
So it looks like the Mach theory may be the correct line to follow all the way along.
I have a feeling if there is a truth to this matter, and we get to the bottom of it, and many of the proposed concepts are grounded in reality, that many of them are subtly linked. I think GR mentioned gravitational disturbances escaping the cavity. To me that implies what ever space time is made up of escaping which makes one ask what is space time and may possibly be connected to other ideas. The energy density in the cavity modifying gravity in GR's proposal may possibly give insight along with the Polarizeable Vacuum theory where gravity modifies the vacuum density which may then be related to equations changing the mass of light providing more impulse of light in water and a back-reaction on the water. (parallel that to the index of vacuum changing). When we start changing the mass of light in a cavity bouncing back and forth, well that sounds really similar to the Woodward effect now. We also have White's proposal of the quantum vacuum rocket. Maybe it could even Parallel back to ideas of Richard Feynman. Its like puzzle pieces. When ideas start to match up that are grounded in reality from multiple perspectives we might begin to see the bigger picture of what's possible.
Edited3. -
#595 by demofsky on 14 Sep, 2016 00:34
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.
You scientists can certainly get fiery when big scientific issues are at debate. But rather than weapons words become your missiles & no prisoners are taken. There seems a long history of such verbal sparring in the scientific world.
Not to mention the manly art of fisticuffs - which were known to happen from time to time at early conferences on quantum mechanics or the denial thereof.
-
#596 by WarpTech on 14 Sep, 2016 00:39
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.
Can you elaborate a little more please, regarding equations (79) through (81) in your Brans-Dicke paper? I'm trying to understand the relationship between "G" and "Eta". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that as the mode "k" increases, and energy density increases, 1/G is increasing, or G is getting smaller. You simply say that the gravitational constant is "modified", but in what way? What are the relationships between say, the Maxwell field, E & B, and G? I saw that you said the change is proportional to U4, but G or 1/G?
The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.
In the PV Model, the coordinate velocity of light as observed by a distant observer in flat space-time, is modified by the gravitational field, using a refractive index, K.
c(K) = c/K
Therefore, since c4/G must remain invariant in the frame of the distant observer,
G(K) = G/K4
In the PV Model, K is directly proportional to the energy density, U. So as the energy density increases, G(K) decreases. i.e.,
1/G ~ U4
it seems like we're on the same page but I think more details in the paper are in order since the integral of equation 81, is rather complex.
Thank you.
-
#597 by oyzw on 14 Sep, 2016 01:57
-
我开始做实验了，TE013模的天线匹配难度很大，请问大家有没有好的建议？
-
#598 by Fugudaddy on 14 Sep, 2016 02:19
-
我开始做实验了，TE013模的天线匹配难度很大，请问大家有没有好的建议？
I started doing experiment, TE013 mode antenna matching is very difficult, do you have any good suggestions?
(Thanks google translate)
-
#599 by demofsky on 14 Sep, 2016 03:18
-
我开始做实验了，TE013模的天线匹配难度很大，请问大家有没有好的建议？
I started doing experiment, TE013 mode antenna matching is very difficult, do you have any good suggestions?
(Thanks google translate)
This is the best post I have seen on this recently: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583043#msg1583043
