-
#800 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2016 03:48
-
Consider the source (me) to be a guy who does emdrive work in a garage. That should mitigate the discomfort of me pointing out his 2006 unpublished paper has been thoroughly discussed and leads to nowhere on the emdrive other than a repetitive dismissal. I encourage readers to look elsewhere for relevant theoretical breakthroughs, not within tired old classical em equations. It's not there. the answer is here:
Full circle...yes, classical em as repeated ad nauseum involving scifi author Egan is a dead end for emdrive theory. It's far more likely the reaction belongs in the realm of 96% of the unknown universe. Best this thread stays focused on what we don't know. Warp tech is getting my attention......
If you accept the NASA thrust results then Egan's claim that there can't be any thrust is wrong.
That doesn't follow. Egan showed that a particular theory (classical electromagnetism) predicts no thrust. If (a big one...) the claim of thrust is believed, then it just means that classical electromagnetism is not enough to describe what is going on.
You just called someone a "scifi author" because they correctly applied EM equations that have been validated in countless experiments, and got results that accurately match the observed experimental resonance.
Classical EM is not a "dead end." It is where you have to start, because any working theory has to correctly predict the results of all of the countless experiments that have validated classical EM.
WarpTech hasn't been able to make a single numerical prediction, and after reviewing his theory, it seems this is because he has issues with variable definition.
Bringing up the fact that Greg Egan has written science-fiction books, is immaterial to the equations Greg Egan presents.
This is compounded by the person referring to Greg Egan in the EM Drive context as a "sci-fi author" failing to point out that Greg Egan has a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics, which is much more relevant to the equations Greg Egan presents concerning the EM Drive.
There are many excellent science and engineering articles that have been written by Science Fiction authors. For example, by Robert Forward, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Forward, who was an American physicist and science fiction writer. His literary work was noted for its scientific credibility and use of ideas developed from his career as an aerospace engineer. So is Greg Egan. One wonders whether the person referring to Egan as a "sci-fi author" has read any of Greg Egan's sci-fi books. Whether he is aware of the exceptional scientific and rational rigor this Australian (whose books are difficult to find in US bookstores) applies to his writings.
Karen Burnham (a physicist and engineer at NASA's Johnson Space Center) has said it well:Quote from: Karen BurnhamGreg Egan (1961- ) publishes works that challenge readers with rigorous, deeply-informed scientific speculation. He unapologetically delves into mathematics, physics, and other disciplines in his prose, putting him in the vanguard of the hard science fiction renaissance of the 1990s
An ad-hominem (Latin for "to the person") is when an <<argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself>>.
The validity of anyone's arguments should be discussed entirely on their merits and not on what books the person may have written or the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.
Hopefully we can discuss the arguments pro and con the EM Drive being real or an experimental artifact, without people having to bring up what books people may have written, or what books people may have read.
Identify the energy (particle, field, wave, etc) which is equally present that passes through copper at sea level, LEO and GEO. Within this simple qualification, you will find the answer to what makes EmDrive a viable spaceflight engine, for it must be an open system and react with the relative conditions within the emdrive cavity. Warp tech is getting there imo. -
#801 by zen-in on 21 Dec, 2016 03:50
-
I have a quick heads up though it is more a question at this point. I and others here have been fooled before. A room temperature superconductor is announced in the past and it technically may be one but cannot be used for any application that we expect from the long awaited RTSC because it's isolated pockets and cannot be strung together into a useful conductor wire or trace. So is that what this is ( a useless curiosity) or is this something different?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/researchers-at-japan-tokai-university.html
I was going to make a thread on this in the Advanced topic forum but when I searched I saw extensive discussion in the EM drive threads about RTSC EM designs so i put it here.
It's hard to say what to make of that news. However there is no shortage of microscopic room temperature superconductors. The website http://superconductors.org/ has been reporting new ones every month for years. A while back there was some interest in a superconductor/permanent magnet device that it was claimed would produce power-free thrust. The inventor raised some money and has done some experiments at Superpower in Schenectady, NY.A couple of weeks ago they had some test results posted on their website but they appear to have been removed.Their Oct '16 test results at Superpower are described here:
http://etheric.com/test-results-nassikas-thruster-ii-idea/
-
#802 by WarpTech on 21 Dec, 2016 04:15
-
...
I am going to stand next to a wall and push on it. Nothing will move because the wall is connected to the floor, and I am pushing in the opposite direction on the floor. I will vary the force I am applying to the wall with time (lets say constant rate of change , but that isn't necessary). You can define the time rate of change of force that I am applying to the wall. This force per time has the units of power per length. There is no meaningful way to define a power per length in this situation.
Sorry for the double post, but I can't let this opportunity slip by. In this situation you have described, all the mechanical forces SUM to zero. So there is no force. Whatever force you think you're exerting is being negated by the wall and the floor, and the time derivative of zero is zero. What best describes this situation in any "meaningful way", is the power dissipation in your muscles. The energy and sugars being burned to exert the tension you are putting on your body,.... divided by your height.QuoteLets do dimensional analysis on a simple pendulum. The relevant variables are: the period (T), the length (L), the gravitational acceleration (g), and the arc length it travels through (a). 4 variables and 2 units (length, time) means 2 dimensionless numbers. One is the ratio of length to arc length, which is effectively the angle it swings through. The other is g*T^2 / L. If you remove L from this, you get g*T^2, which has units of length, but there is no length in the system that this corresponds to. You can't even call it a characteristic length that results in a certain period, because the period is modified by the angle as well.
If you still don't understand after these examples, I don't think there is anything else I can do to help you.
Oh look! The period of a pendulum is,
T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g).
So g*(T/2*pi)2 = L, which is the physical length, L.
If you still insist on proving that I'm doing something wrong by interpreting Volt-seconds as magnetic flux, and adding it to a magnetic potential, then there isn't anything else I can say to convince you. You need a bigger box.
-
#803 by Bob Woods on 21 Dec, 2016 04:45
-
Jose, there's an old saying that you should consider: "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
Sometimes your posts seem saturated with acetic acid. You might lighten up a little. -
#804 by spupeng7 on 21 Dec, 2016 04:59
-
Sometimes non-technical folk will ask questions, "Does the emdrive make enough sound to push on the air?" for example.
Now I understand that the frequencies we are dealing with are attenuated within the inside skin but I don't want to just assume that a frustum could not make thrust if it was vibrating at some resonant harmonic. Could a little mechanical energy be transferred to the outside somehow?
-
#805 by TheTraveller on 21 Dec, 2016 05:19
-
Sometimes non-technical folk will ask questions, "Does the emdrive make enough sound to push on the air?" for example.
Now I understand that the frequencies we are dealing with are attenuated within the inside skin but I don't want to just assume that a frustum could not make thrust if it was vibrating at some resonant harmonic. Could a little mechanical energy be transferred to the outside somehow?
I remember sometimes hearing thumps during Rf pulse application. Also once balanced the thruster on my hand and felt the ~1g of force as the 5 sec Rf pulse hit the thruster. -
#806 by spupeng7 on 21 Dec, 2016 05:43
-
So this might be another thing which should be accounted for in the thrust results. It could be a bit difficult to quantify...Sometimes non-technical folk will ask questions, "Does the emdrive make enough sound to push on the air?" for example.
Now I understand that the frequencies we are dealing with are attenuated within the inside skin but I don't want to just assume that a frustum could not make thrust if it was vibrating at some resonant harmonic. Could a little mechanical energy be transferred to the outside somehow?
I remember sometimes hearing thumps during Rf pulse application. Also once balanced the thruster on my hand and felt the ~1g of force as the 5 sec Rf pulse hit the thruster. -
#807 by as58 on 21 Dec, 2016 05:43
-
I have a quick heads up though it is more a question at this point. I and others here have been fooled before. A room temperature superconductor is announced in the past and it technically may be one but cannot be used for any application that we expect from the long awaited RTSC because it's isolated pockets and cannot be strung together into a useful conductor wire or trace. So is that what this is ( a useless curiosity) or is this something different?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/researchers-at-japan-tokai-university.html
I was going to make a thread on this in the Advanced topic forum but when I searched I saw extensive discussion in the EM drive threads about RTSC EM designs so i put it here.
It's hard to say what to make of that news. However there is no shortage of microscopic room temperature superconductors. The website http://superconductors.org/ has been reporting new ones every month for years. A while back there was some interest in a superconductor/permanent magnet device that it was claimed would produce power-free thrust. The inventor raised some money and has done some experiments at Superpower in Schenectady, NY. A couple of weeks ago they had some test results posted on their website but they appear to have been removed.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-light-years-ahead-of-the-dawn-spacecraft-ion-propulsion-system/
No reputable physicist (though that may not mean much here...) believes in superconductors.org claims of room temperature superconductors.
Also, anything on nextbigfuture should be taken with a big grain of salt. There may be a hint of truth in their reports but anything tends to get hyped up almost beyond recognition. -
#808 by as58 on 21 Dec, 2016 05:55
-
Now are you starting to see the connection between photons (magnetic flux) and gravity?
Your use of dimensional analysis still makes no sense to me, you still don't define variables properly and I still don't know what assumptions you are making.
Your explanations don't seem to help me to understand the theory. Can anyone else follow it? -
#809 by meberbs on 21 Dec, 2016 06:00
-
I could show that magnetic flux is a solution to the Lorentz gauge. You read it yourself! The author said it is any "arbitrary" scalar function. So I choose to use,
If you are going to say that you are using the Lorentz gauge, you have to show that the resulting potentials meet equation 1.22, and you have yet to do so. If you want to use some other random gauge, go ahead, but it just makes the math more messy.
\PHI = N*hbar/2*e
Your statement about "no force because they sum to 0" is wrong. The forces are applied by different things to different things at different locations, and result in tensions in the materials etc. Applying force to an unmoving object generally does no work, so no energy or power is involved. If you want to exert force without exterting energy (because of weirdness with how muscles work) just lean on the wall. Your "meaningful way" is meaningless, since the force does exist, the power doesn't need to and the height is irrelevant. Your response here seems like you are willing to forget how to do basic physics just to avoid having to understand my point....
I am going to stand next to a wall and push on it. Nothing will move because the wall is connected to the floor, and I am pushing in the opposite direction on the floor. I will vary the force I am applying to the wall with time (lets say constant rate of change , but that isn't necessary). You can define the time rate of change of force that I am applying to the wall. This force per time has the units of power per length. There is no meaningful way to define a power per length in this situation.
Sorry for the double post, but I can't let this opportunity slip by. In this situation you have described, all the mechanical forces SUM to zero. So there is no force. Whatever force you think you're exerting is being negated by the wall and the floor, and the time derivative of zero is zero. What best describes this situation in any "meaningful way", is the power dissipation in your muscles. The energy and sugars being burned to exert the tension you are putting on your body,.... divided by your height.QuoteLets do dimensional analysis on a simple pendulum. The relevant variables are: the period (T), the length (L), the gravitational acceleration (g), and the arc length it travels through (a). 4 variables and 2 units (length, time) means 2 dimensionless numbers. One is the ratio of length to arc length, which is effectively the angle it swings through. The other is g*T^2 / L. If you remove L from this, you get g*T^2, which has units of length, but there is no length in the system that this corresponds to. You can't even call it a characteristic length that results in a certain period, because the period is modified by the angle as well.
If you still don't understand after these examples, I don't think there is anything else I can do to help you.
Oh look! The period of a pendulum is,
T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g).
So g*(T/2*pi)2 = L, which is the physical length, L.
Except that is wrong. If you had actually read my post you would have noticed that I had already countered that argument by pointing out that the period is also affected by the angle the the pendulum is deflecting to.If you still insist on proving that I'm doing something wrong by interpreting Volt-seconds as magnetic flux, and adding it to a magnetic potential, then there isn't anything else I can say to convince you. You need a bigger box.
I went in to this with an open mind trying to understand your theory. What you are saying here is that because the units match then it is that. I am telling you that you need to do some math to show that it can be true, since unit matching is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. You keep responding with effectively "the units match so it must be true."
Since you don't even want to think about what I am saying, I will just have to leave this by saying that you have repeatedly failed to provide the math to back up some of your statements, your sources directly contradict some of your claims, and your theory seems to be entirely based on making up variable definitions after you use them, instead of starting with the definitions, which seems to be why you haven't been able to come up with a single numerical prediction. You can't plug numbers in to your equations, when you don't know what they variables physically represent.
-
#810 by mwvp on 21 Dec, 2016 06:33
-
Full circle...yes, classical em as repeated ad nauseum involving scifi author Egan is a dead end for emdrive theory. It's far more likely the reaction belongs in the realm of 96% of the unknown universe. Best this thread stays focused on what we don't know. Warp tech is getting my attention......
If you accept the NASA thrust results then Egan's claim that there can't be any thrust is wrong.
That doesn't follow. Egan showed that a particular theory (classical electromagnetism) predicts no thrust. If (a big one...) the claim of thrust is believed, then it just means that classical electromagnetism is not enough to describe what is going on.
Didn't Paul March in his talk discuss the Jason's also finding no cause for thrust in their simulation/analysis? Did they, or Egan, or anyone do a dynamic simulation of a moving, anisotropic, dissipative and dispersive cavity for anisotropic inertia?
Really, the cavity optomechanics paper I've pasted the doppler work-curve from, and no doubt plenty of other papers on laser cooling address such, but not in our context. I'm surprised and disappointed none seem to get it, or consider it a key characteristic.
I see both arguments to Shawyer's hallowed authority and facile straw-men mere evasions from addressing the difficult matter of dynamic analysis. Shawyer used a cone, I see others using cones. Shawyer speaks of Doppler shifts and group velocity, but that's not addressed. Nor is the "motor/generator" behavior, or the negative inertial-resistance like behavior addressed with simulations.
Because it is difficult? Easier to pit authority against straw-men?
It's much easier to set up an analytically tractable static model as a straw-man, and run off in search of new forces/physics or particles. But considering the phenomena of optomechanical cooling and instability isn't exactly new physics, I find it a rather sad excuse to rag-chew.
As lame as Shawyer's analysis might be, not accounting for sidewall forces, and the distributed doppler-shift, and dissipation rather than lumping it at the ends, at least he made a lame analysis to acted on.
And here we are! -
#811 by hyperplanck on 21 Dec, 2016 06:58
-
Hi. I really appreciate the work you are doing. I know it has been difficult not only building it but dealing with many physicists who are too bias and stubborn to understand what is going on here. I will do my best to help out with advanced physics concepts.
First, I need a small 'mirror' from what is really at the heart of the issue. I noticed that there are a lot of attacks from peers pointing to heat in the cavity in the recently published paper?
Just to make sure I'm not going over old ground, but have we fully looked at the fact that you may have a Maxwell demon inside the cavity and that is where you are getting your energy from? There are recent papers which show how thermodynamics strains quantum mechanic interpretations.
I also have a video interpretations on the violation of Noethers theorem, which also may explain your mysterious thrust.
I have many more points to add on quantum mechanical operations of geometries in magnetic flux tubes. I also have a bunch more questions, and information to share about the relationship to Verlindes emergent gravity and de-brogile bohmian mechanics that also includes a variation on Hawkings photon hairs, interpreted in a new way, that I will go into on another thread. I just wanted to see where we were on the various points I outlined above. I'm here to help and I think I may have many missing pieces of the puzzle to add. Thanks. -
#812 by Vix on 21 Dec, 2016 07:23
-
#813 by RERT on 21 Dec, 2016 08:32
-
Re: Tokai University and room temperature superconductors
This a radically different beast to the stuff at superconductors.org : graphite fibres and alkanes, not complex layered Cu-oxide ceramics. The line that "we showed that the ring current in a ring shaped...did not decay for 50 days" (!) is also very different from the subtle indications of phase transitions that superconductors.org are showing. I have to wonder if anyone has even tried to measure anything like this before.
One could get snooty about Tokai University's ranking, but it really is a university not a guy in his basement, and the work certainly seems interesting. -
#814 by Nerm999 on 21 Dec, 2016 08:57
-
Quote
Identify the energy (particle, field, wave, etc) which is equally present that passes through copper at sea level, LEO and GEO. Within this simple qualification, you will find the answer to what makes EmDrive a viable spaceflight engine, for it must be an open system and react with the relative conditions within the emdrive cavity. Warp tech is getting there imo.
I'm not sure this is meant to be cryptic or a riddle, but what has LEO or GEO got to do with it when we have no idea whatsoever if the emdrive works at LEO or GEO? It entirely possible that the effect is related to the Earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, and their strength at sea level. -
#815 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2016 11:45
-
It's simple. For the EmDrive to be a viable spaceflight engine, it has to work in all three locales. The correct theory will invoke an external energy present in all three (and elsewhere). I ran this thought experiment elsewhere and it solicited about 200 comments and narrowed down the possibilities rather quickly.Quote
Identify the energy (particle, field, wave, etc) which is equally present that passes through copper at sea level, LEO and GEO. Within this simple qualification, you will find the answer to what makes EmDrive a viable spaceflight engine, for it must be an open system and react with the relative conditions within the emdrive cavity. Warp tech is getting there imo.
I'm not sure this is meant to be cryptic or a riddle, but what has LEO or GEO got to do with it when we have no idea whatsoever if the emdrive works at LEO or GEO? It entirely possible that the effect is related to the Earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, and their strength at sea level.
Considering the repetitive chat here about old classical ideas, thought I would suggest the important basics to keep the theory discussion moving forward, not circular.
Edit - China is first to claim EmDrive works in LEO by accounts here and elsewhere. -
#816 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2016 12:07
-
It requires no special talent to use a point of authority argument. Google fu is what this is called. Copy and paste and you're considered an authority on something. But I digress.
Full circle...yes, classical em as repeated ad nauseum involving scifi author Egan is a dead end for emdrive theory. It's far more likely the reaction belongs in the realm of 96% of the unknown universe. Best this thread stays focused on what we don't know. Warp tech is getting my attention......
If you accept the NASA thrust results then Egan's claim that there can't be any thrust is wrong.
That doesn't follow. Egan showed that a particular theory (classical electromagnetism) predicts no thrust. If (a big one...) the claim of thrust is believed, then it just means that classical electromagnetism is not enough to describe what is going on.
Didn't Paul March in his talk discuss the Jason's also finding no cause for thrust in their simulation/analysis? Did they, or Egan, or anyone do a dynamic simulation of a moving, anisotropic, dissipative and dispersive cavity for anisotropic inertia?
Really, the cavity optomechanics paper I've pasted the doppler work-curve from, and no doubt plenty of other papers on laser cooling address such, but not in our context. I'm surprised and disappointed none seem to get it, or consider it a key characteristic.
I see both arguments to Shawyer's hallowed authority and facile straw-men mere evasions from addressing the difficult matter of dynamic analysis. Shawyer used a cone, I see others using cones. Shawyer speaks of Doppler shifts and group velocity, but that's not addressed. Nor is the "motor/generator" behavior, or the negative inertial-resistance like behavior addressed with simulations.
Because it is difficult? Easier to pit authority against straw-men?
It's much easier to set up an analytically tractable static model as a straw-man, and run off in search of new forces/physics or particles. But considering the phenomena of optomechanical cooling and instability isn't exactly new physics, I find it a rather sad excuse to rag-chew.
As lame as Shawyer's analysis might be, not accounting for sidewall forces, and the distributed doppler-shift, and dissipation rather than lumping it at the ends, at least he made a lame analysis to acted on.
And here we are!
No one to my knowledge has done a dynamic analysis on what you have proposed, also moving in the right direction imo. Optomechanical cooling is another distraction. Of all the variables in mechanical designs of the emdrive as well as power levels, the resulting displacement forces being attributed to cg changes is almost laughable.
All someone needs to do is put calibrated weights at various points on a static emdrive on a torsion beam test stand and record displacements accordingly. But that only serves to have authority types choose another classical explanation to focus on. Just saying... -
#817 by Rodal on 21 Dec, 2016 15:07
-
...
Meberbs has questioned the physical interpretation of the flux in your equations, and not their dimensionality.Lets do dimensional analysis on a simple pendulum. The relevant variables are: the period (T), the length (L), the gravitational acceleration (g), and the arc length it travels through (a). 4 variables and 2 units (length, time) means 2 dimensionless numbers. One is the ratio of length to arc length, which is effectively the angle it swings through. The other is g*T^2 / L. If you remove L from this, you get g*T^2, which has units of length, but there is no length in the system that this corresponds to. You can't even call it a characteristic length that results in a certain period, because the period is modified by the angle as well.
If you still don't understand after these examples, I don't think there is anything else I can do to help you.
Oh look! The period of a pendulum is,
T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g).
So g*(T/2*pi)2 = L, which is the physical length, L.
If you still insist on proving that I'm doing something wrong by interpreting Volt-seconds as magnetic flux, and adding it to a magnetic potential, then there isn't anything else I can say to convince you. You need a bigger box.
The issue is not as trivial as in the mechanical pendulum example.
For example, in countless textbooks it is assumed that the electromagnetic momentum density in vacuum is always given by the Poynting vector divided by the square of the speed of light in vacuum, c2. It has recently been proven that this is incorrect in some particular cases. Actually this was known for some time, for example by MIT Professors Penfield and Haus in their monograph "Electrodynamics of Moving Media."
As Penfield and Haus showed in the 1960's, all kinds of issues commonly known as "hidden momentum" or "hidden fluxes" have to do with an incomplete physical definition of the fluxes, which invariably lead to incorrect, unphysical results. Hence careful physical interpretation of the fluxes that lead to consistent, correct physical formulation of the equations of motion, and of constitutive equations is of paramount importance.
There are countless examples of problems such as this in Physics. For example, based on elementary courses on Mechanics people assume that the definitions of stress tensor and rate of stress tensor are unique. This is not the case for finite strain, for which case one has to be very careful as how to define the stress tensor: Cauchy, Kirchoff, Piola-Kirchoff, etc. definitions. Similarly for rates of stress tensor: co-rotational, upper convected, lower convected, etc. Most important, one has to consistently use the definitions of stress and stress rate (which are not unique) in the equations of motion and the constitutive equations, otherwise unphysical results ensue.
Similar situation with definitions of fluxes. The definitions of fluxes is not unique. What matters are the equations of motion and constitutive equations. One has to show that the definitions lead to correct physical results.
To advance this discussion, I would suggest for you to carry out numerical calculations for cases having known physical solutions that are amenable to a closed form solution, to show that the fluxes and the equations of motion, as formulated in your theory lead to correct physical results for well-known problems (NOT FOR THE EM DRIVE, which is a very speculative experimental subject, but for well-known physical solutions !).
There are more physical theories than physicists. A physical theory starts meeting reality when solving the equations, with their boundary conditions and initial conditions for actual physical problems that have known solution.
PS: As previously discussed, we know from the NASA reports, that the natural frequency of the EM Drive is completely and accurately described by classical electromagnetism (as proven with the exact solution of Greg Egan, and by the COMSOL FEA, FEKO BEM, and EmPro FEA results, all of which predict zero EM Drive force, and yet predict the natural frequencies found in EM Drive experiments very accurately). Therefore any EM Drive theory that predicts a different natural frequency than the one based on classical electromagnetism is incompatible with experiments. Thus any mass inertial effects have to be so small as not to affect the natural frequency.
-
#818 by WarpTech on 21 Dec, 2016 16:02
-
Meberbs has questioned the physical interpretation of the flux in your equations, and not their dimensionality.
The issue is not as trivial as in the mechanical pendulum example.
For example, in countless textbooks it is assumed that the electromagnetic momentum density in vacuum is always given by the Poynting vector divided by the square of the speed of light in vacuum, c2. It has recently been proven that this is incorrect in some particular cases. Actually this was known for some time, for example by MIT Professors Penfield and Haus in their monograph "Electrodynamics of Moving Media."
As Penfield and Haus showed in the 1960's, all kinds of issues commonly known as "hidden momentum" or "hidden fluxes" have to do with an incomplete physical definition of the fluxes, which invariably lead to incorrect, unphysical results. Hence careful physical interpretation of the fluxes that lead to consistent, correct physical formulation of the equations of motion, and of constitutive equations is of paramount importance.
There are countless examples of problems such as this in Physics. For example, based on elementary courses on Mechanics people assume that the definitions of stress tensor and rate of stress tensor are unique. This is not the case for finite strain, for which case one has to be very careful as how to define the stress tensor: Cauchy, Kirchoff, Piola-Kirchoff, etc. definitions. Similarly for rates of stress tensor: co-rotational, upper convected, lower convected, etc. Most important, one has to consistently use the definitions of stress and stress rate (which are not unique) in the equations of motion and the constitutive equations, otherwise unphysical results ensue.
Similar situation with definitions of fluxes. The definitions of fluxes is not unique. What matters are the equations of motion and constitutive equations. One has to show that the definitions lead to correct physical results.
To advance this discussion, I would suggest for you to carry out numerical calculations for cases having known physical solutions that are amenable to a closed form solution, to show that the fluxes and the equations of motion, as formulated in your theory lead to correct physical results for well-known problems (NOT FOR THE EM DRIVE, which is a very speculative experimental subject, but for well-known physical solutions !).
There are more physical theories than physicists. A physical theory starts meeting reality when solving the equations, with their boundary conditions and initial conditions for actual physical problems that have known solution.
PS: As previously discussed, we know from the NASA reports, that the natural frequency of the EM Drive is completely and accurately described by classical electromagnetism (as proven with the exact solution of Greg Egan, and by the COMSOL FEA, FEKO BEM, and EmPro FEA results, all of which predict zero EM Drive force, and yet predict the natural frequencies found in EM Drive experiments very accurately). Therefore any EM Drive theory that predicts a different natural frequency than the one based on classical electromagnetism is incompatible with experiments. Thus any mass inertial effects have to be so small as not to affect the natural frequency.
No, I don't get it. Are you asking me to prove Faraday's law of induction? I'm an EXPERT at Power Transformers and power electronics in general. I understand the physics of EMF (voltage) and the induction affects of time varying and spatially varying magnetic fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
My definition and use of the background magnetic flux as a "physical field" is consistent all the way through, but if we can't get past the initial definition of how to interpret a simple scalar function, it can never be conveyed that this interpretation is consistent all the way through. I get stopped on what is IMO, trivial minutia.
This is the "key" new physics I am trying to convey. I'm trying to convey that by treating this flux as a physical real field, it unifies conformal gravity and electromagnetism. This technique works "beautifully" with Kaluza's theory as presented by Lance Williams at the Estes Park workshop, as well as in my own quantum theory.
Read chapter 2 of Felsager and the effects of a tube of magnetic flux when it comes to the Lorentz Force, the Aharanov-Bohm effect, the effect of the gauge transformation on the path length integrals. This is what I'm talking about. I'm not making this stuff up, this is how one does physics with magnetic flux.
https://books.google.com/books?id=R1XkarKY7AwC&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
I will say this. I do not have a solution for the magnetic flux inside an EmDrive. It is an "assumption" of my theory that in the end, it will be generally covariant and applicable to the Lorentz gauge. I can't show this explicitly for the EmDrive. I am working with the modelers, trying to make such determinations, but the data I get is not always what I'm looking for, and it takes a lot of time to sift through it and pull out what I need.
What I am doing is showing a general solution that results in a gravity-like force, but I'm not making any progress it seems, since we're stuck on the very first step of the new interpretation. A redefinition of the scalar field in the gauge transformation to a real field.
-
#819 by Rodal on 21 Dec, 2016 16:34
-
...No, I don't get it. ...
As discussed by MIT Prof. Penfield and Haus, the definition of your flux is irrelevant by itself. What matters is how the fluxes enter the equations of motion and the constitutive equations. That's all that matters, not the fluxes by themselves. If your theory would have the same equations of motion and the same constitutive equations as classical theory, then there would be nothing new in your theory. Obviously your equations of motion and constitutive equations are different. So let's stop discussing your definition of fluxes (their definition is non-unique and we are going on circles discussing this) and solve what matters: the equations of motion, for known conditions.
Therefore the correct way to proceed is to show numerical solutions for your theory that:
1) give a "force" for the EM Drive
2) give correct solutions to well-known physical problems
What is needed is a calculation for well-known electromagnetic classical examples of #2 showing that your theory agrees with experimental evidence for experiments that cannot possibly be evaluated as "Pathological science" as defined by Langmuir. EM Drive experiments, up to further notice (for example when self-levitation can be shown experimentally, as now is being rumored that a team in India has done, or when demonstrated in Space, as one Chinese source is claiming without any scientific details) are seen as pathological science by the Research community until proven otherwise. There are only two EM Drive research teams that have conducted tests in partial vacuum: Tajmar and NASA. Tajmar to this date says that it is not clear whether the EM Drive is producing any force. So there is only one team (NASA) that has shown tests in a partial vacuum, and maintains that the EM Drive is producing a force, but those results are still being debated.
The reports from China on testing EM Drive in LEO have yet not been disclosed (so there is not enough information to scientifically discuss their validity).
Showing that a theory can predict a force for the EM Drive is not enough, one has to also show that the theory is compatible with all known other physical experiments that are not related to the EM Drive (see Minotti's example below).
If you can show numerical solutions for classical problems that agree with known experimental data (NOT the EM Drive!) then you are in a much better position to discuss your theory giving a force for the EM Drive.
_______________
COUNTER EXAMPLE: The scalar tensor theory used by Minotti predicts a force for the EM Drive. He has conducted numerical experiments showing this. Yet Minotti's scalar tensor theory results in solutions between coupling of electricity and magnetism (for NON EM Drive problems) that are known to result in unphysical result at the Earth's surface and at LEO, and at GEO. So Minotti has conducted numerical test #2 (discussed above) and he himself disclosed that his scalar tensor theory is not yet a valid physical explanation for the claimed EM Drive experimental results.
What I am suggesting is that you follow a similar approach as Minotti: examining what your theory predicts for well known NON-EM Drive problems involving electromagnetism and gravity.
