New EmDrive patent application
You cannot dismiss the affect of the real world the drive moves through and relative to, by asserting that it functions relative to its own constantly changing instantaneous rest frame.
Of course it is more complex. However that does not invalidate using the pre acceleration rest frame as the initial velocity external frame to measure distance moved, Work done and KE gained.
Now send an emdrive on the same trajectory with the same proper acceleration, and an INVISIBLE exhaust. How
What is more likely: a systematic experimental error or an "invisible exhaust"?
Now send an emdrive on the same trajectory with the same proper acceleration, and an INVISIBLE exhaust. How
What is more likely: a systematic experimental error or an "invisible exhaust"?
The fact of the matter is, nobody has done any experiments to determine if there is any exhaust coming out or not. We can all guess what the answer is, but until someone tests for it, there is no data.
As I understand it, you are asking us to << imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?>> and then for us to <<clear up where I've gone wrong, I'd be very grateful.>>.
Well, I would say that we should start by that first step. What is the experimental, observational, logical or scientific basis to consider an "invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?"?
No not at all.
Inelastic Compton effect photons impacting end plate bound metallic atom electrons allows momentum and energy transfer from the trapped impacting photons to the end plate metallic atoms. In reaction the photons lose momentum, energy and their wavelength increase.
It is the loss of trapped photon momentum and energy that provides the increased EmDrive momentum, Work done and KE increase.
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
...
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.Momentum is obviously not conserved. Start with an emDrive at rest, it has 0 momentum. Run it for a while, and then turn it off. It now has momentum, but nothing has left the cavity, and there is nothing inside the cavity moving the opposite direction. The only thing that could possible leave the cavity is IR radiation, but that would at best have the momentum of a photon thruster. Obviously nothing in the cavity is moving the opposite direction, because if it was it would soon hit the back of the cavity and make the cavity stop moving forward.
Therefore there in now net forward momentum that a closed system has acquired from no external interactions. This is the very definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
I'm not saying I know but I'm uncomfortable with the statement that we know the only possible thing that can leave the cavity is IR radiation. It's a reasonable and logical assertion to be sure, but is it actually true?
Here is a link to a video describing a new experiment which could provide a common explanation for EmDrive and Woodward effect:
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v [...] The elastic forces holding the material together act to slow down the right wall while accelerating the rest of the box. Total momentum in the box remains the same m*v to the right.
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v [...] The elastic forces holding the material together act to slow down the right wall while accelerating the rest of the box. Total momentum in the box remains the same m*v to the right.
By that logic, if you apply momentum conservation law to tiniest part of the wall near the yellow ball it would result that that part of the wall moves with speeds higher than speed of light.
They pointed that aspect in the video.
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v
Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v
Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?One that needs to be calculated with relativity. You (and the maker of that video) seem to think relativity just says "you suddenly stop accelerating at c." This is not how relativity works. Effective mass increases as you approach c, allowing you to have ever higher momentum stored in the same rest mass as you approach c.
The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v
Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?One that needs to be calculated with relativity. You (and the maker of that video) seem to think relativity just says "you suddenly stop accelerating at c." This is not how relativity works. Effective mass increases as you approach c, allowing you to have ever higher momentum stored in the same rest mass as you approach c.
The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.
I said that the ball had 100 km/s; how is that relativistic compared with 300,000 km/s when mass is 1kg as you proposed?
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v
Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?One that needs to be calculated with relativity. You (and the maker of that video) seem to think relativity just says "you suddenly stop accelerating at c." This is not how relativity works. Effective mass increases as you approach c, allowing you to have ever higher momentum stored in the same rest mass as you approach c.
The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.
I said that the ball had 100 km/s; how is that relativistic compared with 300,000 km/s when mass is 1kg as you proposed?Try reading my post I said the ball is not relativistic.
The wall with 1 millionth the mass and the same momentum obviously is.
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.
Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.
Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.Yes, I know exactly what units I used. Your entire first paragraph is simply agreeing with what I said. The ball's speed is NOT relativistic. This does not change the fact that the wall you defined with the same momentum and 1 / 1000000 of the mass is definitely relativistic.
I did not "switch the rules," I noted that the velocity of the ball is small enough compared to the speed of light that the relativistic momentum is not meaningfully different from the classical result, so I saved myself the trouble of using a more complicated equation to get the same answer. The relativistic result by the way is 100000.006 for the ball's momentum.
This is drifting from the original point that the video you posted is complete nonsense.
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.
Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.Yes, I know exactly what units I used. Your entire first paragraph is simply agreeing with what I said. The ball's speed is NOT relativistic. This does not change the fact that the wall you defined with the same momentum and 1 / 1000000 of the mass is definitely relativistic.
I did not "switch the rules," I noted that the velocity of the ball is small enough compared to the speed of light that the relativistic momentum is not meaningfully different from the classical result, so I saved myself the trouble of using a more complicated equation to get the same answer. The relativistic result by the way is 100000.006 for the ball's momentum.
This is drifting from the original point that the video you posted is complete nonsense.
The drift was caused by your argument which was fallacious. You assumed that relativity is involved when relative speed of wall and ball was only 100 km/s.
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.
Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.Yes, I know exactly what units I used. Your entire first paragraph is simply agreeing with what I said. The ball's speed is NOT relativistic. This does not change the fact that the wall you defined with the same momentum and 1 / 1000000 of the mass is definitely relativistic.
I did not "switch the rules," I noted that the velocity of the ball is small enough compared to the speed of light that the relativistic momentum is not meaningfully different from the classical result, so I saved myself the trouble of using a more complicated equation to get the same answer. The relativistic result by the way is 100000.006 for the ball's momentum.
This is drifting from the original point that the video you posted is complete nonsense.
The drift was caused by your argument which was fallacious. You assumed that relativity is involved when relative speed of wall and ball was only 100 km/s.But the speed of the wall is not 100000 m/s, it is called conservation of momentum, not conservation of velocity. The mass of the wall is not equal to that of the ball, so it must have a different velocity, and for the numbers you provided, it is obvious that velocity is relativistic.
My description is not fallacious, but is an accurate account of how momentum conservation works. You have yet to demonstrate anything other than the fact that you do not understand introductory level physics or the basics of relativity.
So, when your argument was proven fallacious, you changed your argument to personal attack...
Relativity doesn't work the way you applied it.