-
#660 by RotoSequence on 17 Sep, 2016 01:18
-
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen? -
#661 by SeeShells on 17 Sep, 2016 01:26
-
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen?
Great question. Yes there is. It's not what I've been interested in for several months.
Shell -
#662 by dustinthewind on 17 Sep, 2016 01:36
-
I was wondering Shell are you using two antennas to inject radiation where one builds up the energy and the other antenna is in a magnetic field region? I was considering that might cause some jerk reaction possibly. Also here is a link to another thread related to this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41087.msg1585189#msg1585189 where I was wondering if it might be possible that with superimposed electric/magnetic fields (a positive charged mass moving left and a negative charged mass moving right in an electric field while immersed in a B field field coming out of the screen would cause both charges to experience a force up I believe. If the electric and B field reverse at the same frequency and exist at the same time, and the quantum vacuum were made up of such charges then I was wondering if they could both get a push in the same direction and then disappear again.
Oh, I am TT, I am.Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
ShellNormally in a cavity I don't think the electric and magnetic fields tend to exist at the same time in the same space with standing waves in a cavity. Except, maybe in a region between the magnetic field max and electric field max which normally exist out of phase with each other. Possibly the taper of the cavity in a frustum could imbalance the magnitude of superimposed E/B fields such that if they did exist at the same time, that one side would have greater fields and the result would be an uneven push on the QV. In one mode I remember there being two maybe it was 3 regions there B fields and E fields exist near each other so the idea is normally if there was a force they would oppose each other but because of the difference in field strengths one force is greater than the other.striked through because it seemed incorrect and possibly irrelevant
I asked about two antennas because if one antenna resided in a B field max, then turning it on would induce an electric field inside the B field of the cavity. I was wondering if the image you had of the traveling modes in a cavity could have something to do with that. -
#663 by SeeShells on 17 Sep, 2016 02:16
-
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
I was wondering Shell are you using two antennas to inject radiation where one builds up the energy and the other antenna is in a magnetic field region? I was considering that might cause some jerk reaction possibly. Also here is a link to another thread related to this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41087.msg1585189#msg1585189 where I was wondering if it might be possible that with superimposed electric/magnetic fields (a positive charged mass moving left and a negative charged mass moving right in an electric field while immersed in a B field field coming out of the screen would cause both charges to experience a force up I believe. If the electric and B field reverse at the same frequency and exist at the same time, and the quantum vacuum were made up of such charges then I was wondering if they could both get a push in the same direction and then disappear again.
Oh, I am TT, I am.Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Normally in a cavity I don't think the electric and magnetic fields tend to exist at the same time in the same space with standing waves in a cavity. Except, maybe in a region between the magnetic field max and electric field max. Possibly the taper of the cavity in a frustum could imbalance the magnitude of superimposed E/B fields such that if they did exist at the same time, that one side would have greater fields and the result would be an uneven push on the QV.
I asked about two antennas because if one antenna resided in a B field max, then turning it on would induce an electric field inside the B field of the cavity. I was wondering if the image you had of the traveling modes in a cavity could have something to do with that.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS
for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell -
#664 by johnatan warp drive on 17 Sep, 2016 02:57
-
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
I was wondering Shell are you using two antennas to inject radiation where one builds up the energy and the other antenna is in a magnetic field region? I was considering that might cause some jerk reaction possibly. Also here is a link to another thread related to this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41087.msg1585189#msg1585189 where I was wondering if it might be possible that with superimposed electric/magnetic fields (a positive charged mass moving left and a negative charged mass moving right in an electric field while immersed in a B field field coming out of the screen would cause both charges to experience a force up I believe. If the electric and B field reverse at the same frequency and exist at the same time, and the quantum vacuum were made up of such charges then I was wondering if they could both get a push in the same direction and then disappear again.
Oh, I am TT, I am.Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Normally in a cavity I don't think the electric and magnetic fields tend to exist at the same time in the same space with standing waves in a cavity. Except, maybe in a region between the magnetic field max and electric field max. Possibly the taper of the cavity in a frustum could imbalance the magnitude of superimposed E/B fields such that if they did exist at the same time, that one side would have greater fields and the result would be an uneven push on the QV.
I asked about two antennas because if one antenna resided in a B field max, then turning it on would induce an electric field inside the B field of the cavity. I was wondering if the image you had of the traveling modes in a cavity could have something to do with that.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell
i'm sorry for my ignorance, but how it will work this process of detection warpage spacetime with quartz rod ?
-
#665 by tleach on 17 Sep, 2016 03:04
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one
Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
-
#666 by tleach on 17 Sep, 2016 03:13
-
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen?
Great question. Yes there is. It's not what I've been interested in for several months.
Shell
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable
-
#667 by SeeShells on 17 Sep, 2016 03:22
-
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
Oh, I am TT, I am.Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell
i'm sorry for my ignorance, but how it will work this process of detection warpage spacetime with quartz rod ?
Not that much different then what EagleWorks used but through the device will be a optical quality quartz rod and another identical quartz rod outside the cavity.
This will allow an comparison in travel times between the two beams. The quartz rod isolates the beam from any atmospheric effects that the EM fields could induce in the cavity.
Help?
Shell -
#668 by johnatan warp drive on 17 Sep, 2016 03:31
-
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
Oh, I am TT, I am.Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell
i'm sorry for my ignorance, but how it will work this process of detection warpage spacetime with quartz rod ?
Not that much different then what EagleWorks used but through the device will be a optical quality quartz rod and another identical quartz rod outside the cavity.
This will allow an comparison in travel times between the two beams. The quartz rod isolates the beam from any atmospheric effects that the EM fields could induce in the cavity.
Help?
Shell
Thank very much !
I thought it was another different method of interferometry.
Success and good work!
-
#669 by rfmwguy on 17 Sep, 2016 13:04
-
This I know. A gentleman invited me to participate and have an offsite working demo, but I could not commit at that time as Gen II testing had not yet started. The origins of this event initially focused on the Mach Effect from what he told me....
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
Its appears to be a close knit group, mainly around the Woodwards Mach Effect thruster from what I gathered a few months ago. There was no formal call for papers and think it was by invitation only. Had a couple of early conversations with someone whom suggested I bring a working demo of my Gen II, but that was before I started any testing and had no idea if it performed. Timing was bad, in addition...
It is a small workshop, by design, and as such attendance was by invitation.
NSF readers can form their own judgement, for example, by reading the Mission Statement and Conference Overview previously posted by TheTraveller here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1584913#msg1584913 , and based on the reputation of the Space Studies Institute, since it was founded by the late Princeton University Professor Gerard K. O'Neill; later presided by Prof. Freeman Dyson (now in the Board of Trustees); and presently presided by Gary C Hudson.Quote from: Conference MotivationFundamental research in physics funded by the NSF tends to focus on quantum gravity and
(Bold added for emphasis)
string theory. NASA funded a small breakthrough propulsion program in the 1990s, but it was
not sustained. Even if money was available, it is not clear how and where funds should be
invested.
The typical conference format is ill-suited to this venture. Many conferences that accept
breakthrough propulsion papers allow any person to pay a fee and present any dubious technical
claim with little peer review or engagement with subject matter experts.
Therefore, we want to attempt to assemble a handful of potentially viable concepts for a
propulsion breakthrough, and give each of them a rigorous, real-time, peer-review on the twin
bases of theory and experiment. If someone has something with potential, they should relish a
chance to explain it to others. If their scheme is ultimately not viable, they can be freed to join
work in a more promising area
_____________
(*) https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf?lang=en
(**) http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
(***) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Woodward
I hope EmDrive gets a place at the table with those who have actually designed, built and tested devices. Propulsion gatherings in the past have been rife with theories and blue sky plans but very little hardware. I suspect this may change in the future...hardware expos are being kicked around as I type, perhaps as early as December. -
#670 by SeeShells on 17 Sep, 2016 16:00
-
That's the $64 thousand dollar question.Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen?
Great question. Yes there is. It's not what I've been interested in for several months.
Shell
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable
Shell -
#671 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2016 17:56
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
1) The organizers (the Space Studies Institute (SSI)) have arranged for video recording the presentations and they are planning to make them available in their website (ssi.org) some time after the workshop.
2) Several presentations were scheduled (*) to report on experiments , for example:
A) Paul March (NASA): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
B) Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
C) Prof. J. Woodward and Prof. H. Fearn (California State, Fullerton) experiments on the Mach Effect Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
D) Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), "Experimental Dynamic Casimir Effect"
Also a number of researchers conducting experiments will be attending, for example SeeShells (very well known to readers of the EM Drive at NSF) and Nembo Buldrini (Austrian Institute of Technology) who has another Mach Effect device.
Also Todd Desiato ("WarpTech") (also well known to readers of of the EM Drive at NSF) has confirmed -today - that he is attending as well.
It sounds like it is going to be greeaaaaaaaaaaaaaat !
_______________
(*) We look forward to the actual workshop for the final list of presentations -
#672 by SeeShells on 17 Sep, 2016 18:17
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
1) The organizers (the Space Studies Institute (SSI)) have arranged for video recording the presentations and they are planning to make them available in their website (ssi.org) some time after the workshop.
2) Several (apparently the majority, but I will confirm after the workshop) presentations are scheduled to report on experiments , for example:
A) Paul March (NASA): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
B) Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
C) Prof. J. Woodward and Prof. H. Fearn (California State, Fullerton) experiments on the Mach Effect Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
D) Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), "Experimental Dynamic Casimir Effect"
Also a number of researchers conducting experiments will be attending, for example SeeShells (very well known to readers of the EM Drive at NSF), Nembo Buldrini (Austrian Institute of Technology) who has another Mach Effect device, etc.
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell -
#673 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2016 18:29
-
...
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss a self-consistent solution, derived from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber. Also experimental impedance spectroscopy results.
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell -
#674 by SeeShells on 17 Sep, 2016 18:42
-
I'll look forward to hearing you both. In reading about Hoyle-Narlikar, the data never seemed to quite fit, and you have new data. Doggies... I'm jazzed....
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss an exact solution, derivation from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber, and impedance spectroscopy.
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
Good luck in your presentation!
Best,
Shell -
#675 by RotoSequence on 17 Sep, 2016 19:01
-
...
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss a self-consistent solution, derived from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber. Also experimental impedance spectroscopy results.
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
I hadn't heard of Hoyle-Narlikar gravitation before, so I Wikipedia'd myself up to speed.Quote from: Stephan HawkingOn the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of Gravitation
It is shown that the direct-particle action-principle from which Hoyle & Narlikar derive their new theory of gravitation not only yields the Einstein field-equations in the 'smooth-fluid' approximation, but also implies that the 'm'-field be given by the sum of half the retarded field and half the advanced field calculated from the world-lines of the particles. This is in effect a boundary condition for the Einstein equations, and it appears that it is incompatible with an expanding universe since the advanced field would be infinite. A possible way of overcoming this difficulty would be to allow the existence of negative mass.
This should be interesting!
-
#676 by Star One on 17 Sep, 2016 19:04
-
So even a paper that old is still behind a paywall.
-
#677 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2016 21:42
-
...
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss a self-consistent solution, derived from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber. Also experimental impedance spectroscopy results.
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
I hadn't heard of Hoyle-Narlikar gravitation before, so I Wikipedia'd myself up to speed.Quote from: Stephan HawkingOn the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of Gravitation
It is shown that the direct-particle action-principle from which Hoyle & Narlikar derive their new theory of gravitation not only yields the Einstein field-equations in the 'smooth-fluid' approximation, but also implies that the 'm'-field be given by the sum of half the retarded field and half the advanced field calculated from the world-lines of the particles. This is in effect a boundary condition for the Einstein equations, and it appears that it is incompatible with an expanding universe since the advanced field would be infinite. A possible way of overcoming this difficulty would be to allow the existence of negative mass.
This should be interesting!
I will focus my presentation for space propulsion on an exact solution assuming a) solid material velocities much smaller than the speed of light and b) very small inertial mass fluctuations, and its comparison with experiments.
But addressing your question regarding the paper from Hawking in 1965, the Einstein-de Sitter model (used by Hawking) does not allow for an accelerating expansion. Heidi Fearn has a possible answer to that issue in this paper (pages 9 to 13):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269721882_Mach's_Principle_Action_at_a_Distance_and_Cosmology
EDIT: Basically, the expansion of the universe ( Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf ) allows one to define a Rindler cutoff for the advanced waves and so their integral, does not diverge. Of course Hawking back in 1965 did not know the universe was accelerating.... So Hawking was right at the time.
There are other possible answers (besides Hawking's answer regarding negative mass, and H. Fearn's answer), for example an n-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory like this one
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278121181_N-dimensional_Kaluza-Klein_universe_in_Hoyle-Narlikar_C-field_cosmology
In any case the present accelerating expansion phase of the universe, including the dark energy hypotheis, is still not satisfactorily explained to the complete satisfaction of the majority of physicists
-
#678 by Rodal on 18 Sep, 2016 01:13
-
So even a paper that old is still behind a paywall.
This one, much more recent (2008) is not behind a paywall, freely available:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.2965.pdf
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidgeii, R.G. VishwakarmaiiiQuoteWe concede that with the assumptions of dark energy, non-baryonic dark
matter, inflation etc. an overall self consistent picture has been provided
within the framework of the standard model. One demonstration of this
convergence to self consistency is seen from a comparison of a review of the
values of cosmological parameters of the standard model by Bagla, et al.
(1996), with the present values. Except for the evidence from high redshift
supernovae, in favour of an accelerating universe which came 2-3 years later
than the above review, there is an overall consistency of the picture within
the last decade or so, including a firmer belief in the flat (Ω = 1) model with
narrower error bars.
Nevertheless we also like to emphasize that the inputs required in fundamental
physics through these assumptions have so far no experimental checks
from laboratory physics. Moreover an epoch dependent scenario providing
self-consistency checks, e.g. CMB anisotropies, cluster baryon fraction as
a function of redshift does not meet the criterion of ‘repeatability of scientific
experiment’. We contrast this situation with that in stellar evolution
where stars of different masses constitute repeated experimental checks on
the theoretical stellar models thus improving their credibility.
Given the speculative nature of our understanding of the universe, a
sceptic of the standard model is justified in exploring an alternative avenue
wherein the observed features of the universe are explained with fewer speculative
assumptions. We review here the progress of such an alternative
model. -
#679 by Bob Woods on 18 Sep, 2016 05:09
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
for Kitchen Sink. 
Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
Good luck in your presentation!