-
#600 by birchoff on 14 Sep, 2016 03:28
-
Why would it be interesting? because beyond being interesting for its own scientific sake, it would be interesting because:
A) it may explain some naturally occurring cosmological phenomena hereto unexplained to this date (there are many unexplained cosmological phenomena of course
)
As a possible explaination for the trans-Planckian problem with Hawking Radiation?
A black hole is a closed cavity full of EM of sorts, and we observe radiative behaviors that are inconsistent with our predictions in that black body environment.
Does it even really matter that the EM Field is confined? Or is the requirement really that the EM Field in a region of space time be denser than surrounding environment. If the later then I would think there would be alot of astronomical entities one could investigate. -
#601 by tleach on 14 Sep, 2016 03:29
-
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).
I think what you mean to say is that the linear momentum gained by the spaceship is ALMOST equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly#Possible_explanations
Or, I suppose it might have just been a loose cable... If it was that pesky cable again, well gosh darn it, I'm definitely going to have to say something to the IT department this time. -
#602 by birchoff on 14 Sep, 2016 03:31
-
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.
If that is true then in a super conducting frustum where losses would be negligible. Once should be able to detect a reduction in the momentum transfer if it were possible to simply power up the SC Frustum and never recharge it. -
#603 by birchoff on 14 Sep, 2016 03:35
-
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.
I was operating under the impression that most if not all of the graviational effect would be isolated within the frustum. Is this not true? If so then unless people have been playing with asymmetrical frustums of the sort used to create EmDrives, then there is zero reason that anyone would have ever detected anything. In addition would the gravitational effect affect everything or just the frequencies of the EM Field reflecting inside the frustum. -
#604 by birchoff on 14 Sep, 2016 03:43
-
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.
If no gravitational body is needed. Then how is motion being generated. If it requires a gravitating body. Then I can easily imagine a scenario similar to buoyancy. If not then the only other thing I could fathom is there is the asymmetrical frustum would be creating a gravity gradient that is contained within it but just off center from the center of mass of the frustum. Which would leads to the frustum wanting to move along the gradient.
P.S. If one were to plot gravity like we do elevation technically if you zoomed out of that picture you would realize that we are never outside the effects of a gravitating body. It just becomes a question of how large the effect of gravity is away from the source. There is the gravity field of Earth, the field of the sun. The field created by all the mass in our solar system, the field created by all the mass in our galaxy and the field seemingly created by all the dark matter permeating our galaxy. I think the only place you could really find flat space time is in the spaces between galaxies. -
#605 by TheTraveller on 14 Sep, 2016 06:09
-
And so it starts:
Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:QuoteThought you should know this. The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:
"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"
My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games. But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable. Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others. We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.
I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words. -
#606 by StrongGR on 14 Sep, 2016 06:30
-
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.
You should not just focus on these two equations. The missing relations are in the computations given in the preceding sections. Then, I will explain how to proceed to get numbers out.
The square of the stress-energy tensor is provided by eq.(59) and following. Please note that here I will apply some severe approximations by averaging on cos(θ0) and in time. The idea is to see if eq.(82) admits a solution in φ and, if affirmative, the order of magnitude one obtains for the gravitational constant. L0 is obtained by mediating on the cavity eq.(47) (it is an integral average). Here there is the dependence on G that will be taken as a varying field as expected on a Brans-Dicke model. The dependence on r is obtained by eq.(69). Eq.(66) fixes the value of the energy density and its dependence on k.
I expect from this a rough estimation to understand how things go, due to the heavy approximations I used. One can refine all the arguments by providing an exact solution to eq.(79). This could be afforded numerically but all I want to do is to obtain an order of magnitude.
I do not know what the PV model is and why you should expect c4/G being a constant. I am using a well-known model, widely used by researchers to test general relativity, that takes as gravitational coupling the inverse of a scalar field. This is mathematically and physically consistent as already shown at its inception in the '60s. So, if this is your proposal, you could be diverging from the Brans-Dicke model and general relativity as well. -
#607 by StrongGR on 14 Sep, 2016 06:36
-
...
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.
If no gravitational body is needed. Then how is motion being generated. If it requires a gravitating body. Then I can easily imagine a scenario similar to buoyancy. If not then the only other thing I could fathom is there is the asymmetrical frustum would be creating a gravity gradient that is contained within it but just off center from the center of mass of the frustum. Which would leads to the frustum wanting to move along the gradient.
P.S. If one were to plot gravity like we do elevation technically if you zoomed out of that picture you would realize that we are never outside the effects of a gravitating body. It just becomes a question of how large the effect of gravity is away from the source. There is the gravity field of Earth, the field of the sun. The field created by all the mass in our solar system, the field created by all the mass in our galaxy and the field seemingly created by all the dark matter permeating our galaxy. I think the only place you could really find flat space time is in the spaces between galaxies.
When I read this I think about all the educational books about general relativity: matter says to space-time how to curve and space-time says matter how to move. So, here the "body" is the e.m. field inside the cavity that, by changing space-time, gets back a reaction that moves it along with the cavity (the change in space-time applies both to the field and the cavity). -
#608 by Star One on 14 Sep, 2016 06:52
-
Just to explain why I posted that recent discovery about the possible reality of time crystals, I realise now I hadn't really given any proper explanation of something that would look OT. It was to give an example of something that was thought impossible in physics even breaking a fundamental rule. But upon further closer study over time and improved technology in certain areas, ion traps in this case, actually turned out to be possible in theory and in reality too. Something I think is paralleled by the EM drive.
-
#609 by StrongGR on 14 Sep, 2016 07:09
-
Just to explain why I posted that recent discovery about the possible reality of time crystals, I realise now I hadn't really given any proper explanation of something that would look OT. It was to give an example of something that was thought impossible in physics even breaking a fundamental rule. But upon further closer study over time and improved technology in certain areas, ion traps in this case, actually turned out to be possible in theory and in reality too. Something I think is paralleled by the EM drive.
Yes, indeed. But if I would have sent such an idea to that journal (time crystals went out by Frank Wilczek, Nobel winner, on Physical Review Letters), it would have been straightforwardly rejected. It is important also the person who makes the proposal to get an idea through (authority principle). -
#610 by Flyby on 14 Sep, 2016 07:37
-
And so it starts:
Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:QuoteThought you should know this. The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:
"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"
My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games. But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable. Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others. We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.
I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.
pffff... seriously?...
What kind of sick and pathetic mind would try to impersonate and potentially damage the reputation of Ir.Paul March (and that of EagleWorks and/or NASA)? Such a person belongs in a mental institute...
I think the world is already challenging enough for engineers/scientist that it really doesn't need another layer on intrigues, political maneuvering and deceptions.
A good thing you have kept a personal contact with ir Paul March to correct this deception and disinformation. Before you know it, the complete popular world press would/could have picked up incorrect information....
-
#611 by oyzw on 14 Sep, 2016 08:18
-
我测量到了TE013模，2.54G S11 -8.1
-
#612 by oyzw on 14 Sep, 2016 08:20
-
#613 by Chrochne on 14 Sep, 2016 08:33
-
And so it starts:
Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:QuoteThought you should know this. The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:
"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"
My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games. But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable. Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others. We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.
I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.
pffff... seriously?...
What kind of sick and pathetic mind would try to impersonate and potentially damage the reputation of Ir.Paul March (and that of EagleWorks and/or NASA)? Such a person belongs in a mental institute...
I think the world is already challenging enough for engineers/scientist that it really doesn't need another layer on intrigues, political maneuvering and deceptions.
A good thing you have kept a personal contact with ir Paul March to correct this deception and disinformation. Before you know it, the complete popular world press would/could have picked up incorrect information....
You are right. It could have caused more trouble for this project. This happened, and paper is not even out for the public. To the defens of the news paper guys. Many of them know they do not fully understands what is going on and are open to hear from more educated people on this matter, thus correct their mistakes in the text. Of course this subject is very hard to explain to the public, so they need to make it "understandable".
EmDrive topic really made a community of sorts here. It is nice to see that you debunked that imposter together. -
#614 by Chrochne on 14 Sep, 2016 08:36
-
我测量到了TE013模，2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator -
#615 by Flyby on 14 Sep, 2016 08:56
-
....
Most of the credits of defacing the imposter goes to TT, as he took the effort to contact Ir. Paul March.
EmDrive topic really made a community of sorts here. It is nice to see that you debunked that imposter together.
I mentioned it here on this forum, because I found it strange that Ir. P. March decided to communicate on Reddit , rather then inhere , which is a much more discussion-friendly and professional environment.
Tbh, I had some (small) doubts, but considering the degree of social engineering (fe calling Dr.White by his first name Harold, as if they were close friends), I admit I really did consider it to be ir.Paul March. I just found it an odd behavior, but I wasn't thinking about an imposter...
It is quite shocking, tbh...
Call me naive, but that kind of vicious behavior is not the first thing that comes to my mind.
It's something I'm not used to deal with. That's more CIA, NSA, propaganda oriented stuff...
Not my cup of T...
-
#616 by TheTraveller on 14 Sep, 2016 10:23
-
我测量到了TE013模，2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong. -
#617 by oyzw on 14 Sep, 2016 10:46
-
我测量到了TE013模，2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值，我采用的是单环耦合天线 -
#618 by qraal on 14 Sep, 2016 11:44
-
Tbh, I had some (small) doubts, but considering the degree of social engineering (fe calling Dr.White by his first name Harold, as if they were close friends), I admit I really did consider it to be ir.Paul March. I just found it an odd behavior, but I wasn't thinking about an imposter...
Pseudo-March's first mistake was calling him "Harold" - everyone calls him "Sonny". Even the real Paul March.QuoteIt is quite shocking, tbh... Call me naive, but that kind of vicious behavior is not the first thing that comes to my mind. It's something I'm not used to deal with. That's more CIA, NSA, propaganda oriented stuff...
Not my cup of T...
Never attribute to design or malice, what can be explained by stupidity or attention-seeking. There are some very self-delusional people in Academia, and no doubt big Institutions like NASA, who think that astro-turfing and sock-puppeting opinion is the *best* way to promote their pet theories. Plenty would love to shut down divergent and competing viewpoints to their own. -
#619 by Tellmeagain on 14 Sep, 2016 11:54
-
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值，我采用的是单环耦合天线
This result is consistent with the numbers obtained from HFSS simulation. I used single ring coupling antenna. --human translator
)
