Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8  (Read 1427598 times)

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 354
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter. 

Supposing a bonded pair has the same charge but the anti-matter counterpart behaves as if it has the opposite charge because time is reversed then they will behave as opposite charges but annihilate each other and yet they still exist.  That is coming together means they cause a great disturbance in the QV which is the light created when they annihilate?  If anti-matter really runs backwards in time and separating them causes a gradient in the time field then inducing a gradient in the time field may be as simple as charging a capacitor to a really high voltage.  That is some charge on one plate will have an effect of slowing down time while the other would speed it up. 

This reminds me of WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube.com's videos here where he specifically addresses a charged capacitor effecting space time and find that it could induce a gradient in space time.:

I would suggest listinging to 34:00 where he specifically says either negative or positive charge will behave as if it has exotic matter properties which I think means negative energy properties.  Possibly like the anti-mater in the QV with time slowing effects?  That is one of the charges on the capacitor might attract the anti matter?  But then again there are both types of charges for anti-matter but maybe one charge of anti-matter is more massive than the other?


According to the Reissner-Nordstrom equation, the sign of the charge doesn't matter. The refractive index is dependent on Q2 and the affect is anti-gravity, or an increase in the rate of a clock. The R-N solution results in a highly charged blackhole, will have a naked singularity and no event horizon.

This is a very old paper. A lot of my understanding has changed since then, but this has not.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model

Anti-matter does not have the affect of anti-gravity. Anti-matter has positive mass and opposite charge. However, you are correct in that, every point charge is surrounded by virtual electron-positron pairs. A real electron for example, will swap places with a virtual electron and this is called Exchange scattering. So at the scale of point charges, the vacuum is composed of matter-antimatter. But far from such strong fields, it is just photons IMO.

I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity.  Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart.  I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity.  I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect.  The light being the polarization of the QV. 

Thanks for the paper, I'll need to look it over when I get some time.  I just thought it interesting in that he suggested at 34:00 that one of the charges would have the properties of exotic matter in that it would reduce the energy level or mass of the charge which suggested to me that maybe the charge was attracting the presence of some type of negative energy density, possibly from anti matter of the QV.  I'm not sure his video is intentionally related to what I am thinking about, but I had an uncanny feeling of a similarity from it. 

Also isn't charge conserved?  If far away the QV was just photons then I don't understand how charge could just decompose into just photons.  Maybe away from the presence of strong fields the separation of charge in the QV doesn't show up because it takes a field to separate the charges in the QV?  Well, I probably need to read up more on the subject. 


« Last Edit: 08/24/2016 09:37 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 1712

Offline therealjjj77

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Earth
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 10

I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity.  Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart.  I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity.  I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect.  The light being the polarization of the QV. 

I don't think time works in this fashion. Time does not have a reverse per se. That's not to say that anti-matter will not mirror the opposite action of matter when formed(as in hurling in the opposite direction with an opposite spin), but it would do so in a forward time. Usually this comes from a misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity. You are thinking in the right direction, though, to look for a process causing gravity and not just the mere presence of mass. I have just submitted an article for publishing on this topic and will post it here once the article is published.

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3373
  • Likes Given: 771
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released.  Not sure of your question..
My original statement was "results in the conclusion that my phone should fly off my desk and slam into the wall." What you responded with is a completely different situation. Let me try to clarify slightly "results in the conclusion that my phone when sitting on the floor should spontaneously fly off sideways and slam into the wall."

-  ...”there is little logic...”. Remember that once you have a single stuff or substance and a single cause, these inferences are not only logically possible but even necessary. Two causes are one and the same. And if I say “it sounds like” it is offered and to be taken as such; : “sounds like”. These will appear where and when I try to parallel the metaphysics and known physics.
No, you are drawing a conclusion based on a fallacy. You do not provide any separate logical justification, only this correlation based on similarity. Jumping to a conclusion based on this is equivalent to saying a fire truck and a Ferrari are both red, so they both must be intended for fire fighting. This is simply wrong.

- “Here is a metaphysical description...”. That is not metaphysics. In true metaphysics “your are not there”.  It is about what exists and what makes it evolve/change by itself. The time process was deduced from top-down according to what we know, and bottom-up, from a logical creation of the universe.This metaphysics is about what the universe is made of and what it does by itself spontaneously. Everything we know is about what we can do with the universe; it is on a need to know basis. The universe doesn’t need to know physics because it is ruled by simple logic. Metaphysics is extremely limited; substance, cause and some forms and shapes. That’s it! It has no predictive power; this is in the hands number logic or maths and physics.
What I gave was an explanation of why the particle behaves as quantum mechanics predicts as an attempt to state the truth of what is really happening. Just because it doesn't fit your hypothesis doesn't make it not metaphysics.

Also even metaphysics should have some predictive power. It can do this by showing how a branch of physics can be reformulated to closer match the truth of how the universe works. This enables physics to get a theory closer to grand unification and make more useful predictions. If this wasn't true, then the start of your paper claiming that if we had better metaphysics we wouldn't still be using chemical rockets would be wrong.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 545
Quote
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell


Extremely skeptical of the Nassikas claim in that link. But is it possible he's just made a very compact magsail?
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1116
  • Likes Given: 658
Uh actually I was not debating anything.

It's a rough crowd here.  Nobody's yet floated the device across the conference room table for investors.  The first one to do so wins.  They do like debating tho!

Still, I threw an eyeball over the link you provided:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807

Most of the designs here are closed cavities.  No place for the photons to exit, for one thing.

For another, the paper's authors look to be trying to find the math before they have a device.  Here, they're trying to build a device before they have the math.

I have no idea what the best way to proceed is, but hey.  Thanks for posting.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline FattyLumpkin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 279
  • Boise ID
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 0
4N/kilowatt force/thrust will take us to Proxima Centauri b in 29.9 years.
In the presence of water the tidally locked PC b there would be a ring of temperate and breezy zones to live in.
Anyone for a large build yet?
« Last Edit: 08/26/2016 03:29 am by FattyLumpkin »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1116
  • Likes Given: 658
FYI:

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/grp07/measuring-tiny-forces-with-light.cfm

Hah!

Check out what else they're doing with photons these days!

syntheticneurobiology.org/PDFs/10.06.boyden.pdf
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1116
  • Likes Given: 658
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released.  Not sure of your question..
My original statement was...

Mberbs:  Nice rebuttal.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2016 12:28 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1116
  • Likes Given: 658
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline M.LeBel

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 34
Mberbs: The cell phone “statement” was not about exposing anything. You can do better than that.

...fallacy.  The first part of my work was to come up with a single type of substance and a single type of cause.  Let me put it this way;  everything that happen spontaneously in the universe is due to this single type of cause;  what exists, does so more where the rate of time is slower. Moving clouds in the sky, rolling waves on the ocean, galaxies forming, objects falling, atom forming  etc.  The deepest reason why is this “cause”.

.... Why... Physics says HOW things work. It always ask “why” they do so, as an intellectual move, but the methodology based on experience always return a “How” it happen. Equations connect facts and connected facts do not require any logical cause. The only answer to the “why” question is a bare bone logical cause. 

... Predictive power..  Here I just acknowledge the limitations of metaphysics and recognize what truly belongs to physics.  Prediction requires numbers and this metaphysics , as far as I understand it myself, stops at the number 1 and zero; existence and non-existence.

Now, if you would care to stop playing with flying cell phone and red fire trucks and put out a real question, I would be glad to tackle the problem with you. Bottom line; we have a job to do here and if you can’t teach me or learn from me this, conversation is pointless.

Thanks,

Marcel,   

Offline M.LeBel

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 34

Four decades of BB, Alt-phys, forums etc. Some posts require an excruciatingly delicate balance between biting and begging. But being these weird humans, the two are about the same thing; connecting at a cost.”Biting” is connecting at the cost of hurting the other. “Begging” is connected at the cost of hurting yourself. If we did not feel the connection as so imperative, we could manage to do it without a cost. Yes..... we are weird... but so beautiful at the same time.

my apologies,

Marcel,

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3373
  • Likes Given: 771
...
Now, if you would care to stop playing with flying cell phone and red fire trucks and put out a real question, I would be glad to tackle the problem with you. Bottom line; we have a job to do here and if you can’t teach me or learn from me this, conversation is pointless.
I don't have any questions for you, except what did you not understand about my previous posts? You proposed some statements about how the universe works. I pointed out using the clearest explanations I could: why your statements are not consistent with how the universe works, and that there are flaws in what you refer to as logic.

Unless you choose to actually respond to these points rather than ignoring them, I do not know how to state this any clearer than I have. There is certainly more details we could discuss, but there is no reason for me to go further if you don't respond to what I have said so far. If you are unable to understand, then hopefully my explanations have helped other readers on this site understand the flaws in your hypothesis.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1536
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o

We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss.  ;D

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.

Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: 08/27/2016 02:47 pm by Rodal »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 354

I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity.  Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart.  I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity.  I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect.  The light being the polarization of the QV. 

I don't think time works in this fashion. Time does not have a reverse per se. That's not to say that anti-matter will not mirror the opposite action of matter when formed(as in hurling in the opposite direction with an opposite spin), but it would do so in a forward time. Usually this comes from a misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity. You are thinking in the right direction, though, to look for a process causing gravity and not just the mere presence of mass. I have just submitted an article for publishing on this topic and will post it here once the article is published.

I found some interesting information on a cern link that touches on some history.  I was excited to see that Richard Feynman may have thought of anti-matter as traveling back in time.  It might be connected to the Wheeler-Feynman theory and the Feynman diagrams.  I'll probably have to look more into it.  Here is the link: http://cds.cern.ch/record/294366/files/open-96-005.pdf

This may also be connected and I suspect it appears to suggest dark matter as anti matter in another dimension where space time flows out of that matter and pulls our space time in leading to gravity but from another dimension?  I could be wrong on this as I still have to read this article.  I suspect it is what it is about because it was something that I had considered previously.  Link is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9812021  They mention Feynman and reverse time for anti-matter also!  Mmmm, not quite what I expected I suppose.

How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o

We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss.  ;D

I suppose I found it exciting because it got my mind thinking in a way I hadn't yet which was to make the connection of time reversal in anti-matter and that inducing gravity and relativity.  Not sure how solid that foundation might be yet but it seems there may already be some structure for it.  I was feeling the need to better understand the quantum vacuum if we are going to speculate we can push off of it.
« Last Edit: 08/27/2016 02:32 am by dustinthewind »

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 518
  • Likes Given: 1566
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Are you able to share the name?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o

We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss.  ;D

If Dr. Rodal is correct in the paper from NASA being accepted for publication then I suspect the blog here will be jumping, of course it depends what's in the paper. NASA has been so very closed on this, it's been frustrating not seeing open information available like NASA, as a public entity normally operates. Geez, they even televised all the Shuttle and Apollo launches, good and bad.

I wrote to a dear friend a bit ago... "We are at the cusp of living a dream of many or being a memory of none".

Let's hope for the best.

Shell

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1116
  • Likes Given: 658
Keep us posted, doc!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0