-
#1060 by nickolas on 27 Aug, 2017 15:37
-
So, when your argument was proven fallacious, you changed your argument to personal attack...
You have not proven anything. Relativity works exactly as I applied it. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. Also, if I am wrong you need to describe exactly how it does work. Just saying that I'm wrong doesn't help.
Relativity doesn't work the way you applied it.
Stating that you have demonstrated that you don't understand what you are talking about isn't a personal attack, it is a fact.
When you refer to person's ability that is a personal attack. Stick to logical statements, math or principles of physics to avoid that.
Your first error was to assume that is a relativistic situation when prior the collision neither the ball nor the wall had any relativistic speeds or momentum. Then, after collision you apriori considered that is relativistic scenario, and used formulas from relativity to prove that the speed is relativistic. That is at least circular logic.
Your second error was the separation of the right wall from the entire frame, reducing its mass, in order to prove that its speed would be higher than the one of the yellow ball. But, you should have applied that rule symmetrically to the ball, taking only a portion of its mass into the conservation of momentum equation. Then the results would not yield a higher speed for the wall. If you would go further, you could analyze collisions of the molecules and atoms near the impact point, and you'll see that you get equal speeds after the collision. -
#1061 by meberbs on 27 Aug, 2017 16:10
-
Your first error was to assume that is a relativistic situation when prior the collision neither the ball nor the wall had any relativistic speeds or momentum. Then, after collision you apriori considered that is relativistic scenario, and used formulas from relativity to prove that the speed is relativistic. That is at least circular logic.
It is never wrong to assume that something is relativistic. If it isn't relativistic, then you will have done some extra work, but will get the same answer. If it is relativistic, but you don't use the relativistic equations, then you get incorrect answers like 100*c. If you had ever taken a course on relativity you would know this, so please stop making proclamations in a field that you know nothing about.Your second error was the separation of the right wall from the entire frame, reducing its mass, in order to prove that its speed would be higher than the one of the yellow ball. But, you should have applied that rule symmetrically to the ball, taking only a portion of its mass into the conservation of momentum equation. Then the results would not yield a higher speed for the wall. If you would go further, you could analyze collisions of the molecules and atoms near the impact point, and you'll see that you get equal speeds after the collision.
You seem to be confused on one single and simple point. Force is defined as rate of change of momentum. What the force does is that it imparts a specific, equal and opposite momentum into the ball and the box. This momentum starts concentrated in a small piece of each object and spreads outwards through the object. This means that initially parts of the object move at higher speeds than other parts, and the object temporarily deforms. The same thing does happen in both the ball and the box, but the ball is much smaller than the box, so it doesn't take as long for it to reach a uniform velocity.
The explanations in the video do not make any sense, and clearly do not conserve momentum.
P.S. I never said that you aren't able to understand this, I said that you don't understand this. If I didn't think you were able to understand this, I wouldn't bother explaining it to you. -
#1062 by as58 on 27 Aug, 2017 16:28
-
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.
-
#1063 by TheTraveller on 27 Aug, 2017 16:35
-
A few pages ago I asked if anyone could figure out why Cullen measured reduced end plate radiation pressure as waveguide diameter decreases and why the reduction from standard radiation pressure was equal to
p = (2 * E ) / c) * (external wavelength / guide wavelength)
Found an excellent graphic from XRay that gives a nice hint as attached.
The other atrachment also supplies a hint.
-
#1064 by meberbs on 27 Aug, 2017 16:49
-
A few pages ago I asked if anyone could figure out why Cullen measured reduced end plate radiation pressure as waveguide diameter decreases and why the reduction from standard radiation pressure was equal to
I missed that question among all of the nonsense you posted.
p = (2 * E ) / c) * (external wavelength / guide wavelength)
Found an excellent graphic from XRay that gives a nice hint as attached.
The other atrachment also supplies a hint.
The answer has been known since before Cullen did any experiments, although it should be noted that Cullen used a constant diameter waveguide, not a changing diameter. The diagram you found is accurate, and makes the answer clear enough. It also demonstrates why Shawyer's claim of no radiation pressure on the sidewalls is simply wrong. -
#1065 by Chris Bergin on 27 Aug, 2017 17:38
-
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.
I agree.
While throwing one's toys out of the cot and saying "I don't like it so we shouldn't have it" would be very wrong of me, I think a "Space Policy" section approach may be a good way of taking this forward, where it's read only apart from selected members (L2 - seen as they are literally funding the site, and those on invitation - those who have proved to be useful contributors) who can add posts and threads.
I'll have a think about that. -
#1066 by kaublezw on 27 Aug, 2017 18:35
-
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.
I agree.
While throwing one's toys out of the cot and saying "I don't like it so we shouldn't have it" would be very wrong of me, I think a "Space Policy" section approach may be a good way of taking this forward, where it's read only apart from selected members (L2 - seen as they are literally funding the site, and those on invitation - those who have proved to be useful contributors) who can add posts and threads.
I'll have a think about that.
I'd rather read all sides of the debate and make up my own mind than see only one side. This is an internet forum, not a university physics department. There's a lot of wild ideas and what seem like obvious logical fallacies posted on these pages, but if you restrict who can post, I certainly won't be coming back.
Here's what I do when I read posts that I don't consider useful: I ignore them.
-
#1067 by ThinkerX on 27 Aug, 2017 20:15
-
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.
I agree.
While throwing one's toys out of the cot and saying "I don't like it so we shouldn't have it" would be very wrong of me, I think a "Space Policy" section approach may be a good way of taking this forward, where it's read only apart from selected members (L2 - seen as they are literally funding the site, and those on invitation - those who have proved to be useful contributors) who can add posts and threads.
I'll have a think about that.
I'd rather read all sides of the debate and make up my own mind than see only one side. This is an internet forum, not a university physics department. There's a lot of wild ideas and what seem like obvious logical fallacies posted on these pages, but if you restrict who can post, I certainly won't be coming back.
Here's what I do when I read posts that I don't consider useful: I ignore them.
There is some very good material posted here - notably the DIY updates and attendant commentary. Same for
papers that present theories that don't immediately fall apart when subject to more than superficial scrutiny. The various simulations are also pretty good. Likewise, a number of educated posters here make admirable efforts to enlighten honest misconceptions or hash out ideas.
On the not so good side, we have an increasing number of 'crazy-train' type DIY efforts, conspiracy theories, and concepts that are...'obviously flawed at a fundamental level.' (I'm being polite.)
Currently, though, from where I'm standing (on the sidelines since thread one) the good points outweigh the bad. Therefore, with the greatest respect for Chris Bergin, I suggest the current situation continue. -
#1068 by RotoSequence on 27 Aug, 2017 21:06
-
If people need to have a regular account for at least a few months before being allowed to post in the New Physics section, that could also cut down on the noise.
-
#1069 by tchernik on 27 Aug, 2017 21:56
-
My humble request to the moderators, is that any topic that doesn't "cut it" for any reason isn't just blocked but removed after a while.
This section has a lot of activity in very few posts and very little on the noise discussions, therefore the later remain clogging the channel and giving the impression that anything goes here, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the case.
I'd prefer to see a couple of very focused and good topics here than a lot of "OMG look at my shiny new Theory of Everything!" from newuser19765. -
#1070 by meberbs on 27 Aug, 2017 22:20
-
If people need to have a regular account for at least a few months before being allowed to post in the New Physics section, that could also cut down on the noise.
The worst of the problems are almost always due to people who have never posted before, so this might be a good solution without excluding anyone. If you really have that great of an idea, you can wait 2 months before posting it. In the mean time you can lurk, or post on other sections of the site. Obviously L2 membership should bypass this.
I can't say it will totally fix the problem, since it might just make people post their nonsense in Advanced Concepts instead. -
#1071 by moreno7798 on 28 Aug, 2017 01:39
-
If people need to have a regular account for at least a few months before being allowed to post in the New Physics section, that could also cut down on the noise.
The worst of the problems are almost always due to people who have never posted before, so this might be a good solution without excluding anyone. If you really have that great of an idea, you can wait 2 months before posting it. In the mean time you can lurk, or post on other sections of the site. Obviously L2 membership should bypass this.
I can't say it will totally fix the problem, since it might just make people post their nonsense in Advanced Concepts instead.
That is the worst idea I've ever heard. First, because "THAT IS WHAT L2 IS FOR". If you want a club, then you have L2. Businesswise, not letting people post is the equivalent of turning people away at your storefront.
I've said this before, this thread should be about the hardware (regardless of what your opinion of how EMDrive works). It should be about building and testing the hell out of EMDrive.
BUT . . . This thread should NOT be about a test of wills to see who can outlast the other in a war of words. If that's what you want, as far as I'm concerned, that should be in a separate thread - THAT'S HOW YOU CUT DOWN ON THE NOISE.
Start a thread on " How EMDrive might actually work" and you will see the noise on this thread go down to zero.
One more time: "The proof is in the pudding". You build it, you test the hell out of it, and the answers will come on their own.
Just my opinion. -
#1072 by spupeng7 on 28 Aug, 2017 01:53
-
My humble request to the moderators, is that any topic that doesn't "cut it" for any reason isn't just blocked but removed after a while.
tchernik,
This section has a lot of activity in very few posts and very little on the noise discussions, therefore the later remain clogging the channel and giving the impression that anything goes here, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the case.
I'd prefer to see a couple of very focused and good topics here than a lot of "OMG look at my shiny new Theory of Everything!" from newuser19765.
if conservation within GR is broken by the emdrive, then there is new theoretical work which needs to be done. Shiny or not, let us not through the baby out with the bathwater.
If it is only emdrive experimenters who have direct evidence that conservation within GR is no longer valid, then they have the added responsibility of reproducing their results for the benefit to theoretical physics as well as its benefits to transportation and exploration. -
#1073 by meberbs on 28 Aug, 2017 02:21
-
That is the worst idea I've ever heard. First, because "THAT IS WHAT L2 IS FOR". If you want a club, then you have L2. Businesswise, not letting people post is the equivalent of turning people away at your storefront.
First you seem to have missed the part where anyone can post, they would just have to wait a little while before they can post in this section.
Also, L2 is not a "special club." It is only for the posting of space industry inside information and the discussion of that information. Everything else is not allowed.
This suggestion is significantly more open than what this site already does for the Space Policy section, which is public, but only L2 members can post. The whole reason for these restrictions is to reduce the burden on the awesome moderators of this site.I've said this before, this thread should be about the hardware (regardless of what your opinion of how EMDrive works). It should be about building and testing the hell out of EMDrive.
Splitting into 2 threads, one for experiment and one for theory seems like a reasonable idea. There would be some crossover since theory should inform experiment and vice versa, so others have expressed a preference to keep it one thread when this has been suggested before.
BUT . . . This thread should NOT be about a test of wills to see who can outlast the other in a war of words. If that's what you want, as far as I'm concerned, that should be in a separate thread - THAT'S HOW YOU CUT DOWN ON THE NOISE.
Start a thread on " How EMDrive might actually work" and you will see the noise on this thread go down to zero.
Req just tried to start one for just builder updates and it immediately got taken over by a new member who wanted to promote his "theory of everything" and some poorly described device that doesn't appear to do anything. This is the kind of thing we are trying to have less of. -
#1074 by tchernik on 28 Aug, 2017 03:40
-
My humble request to the moderators, is that any topic that doesn't "cut it" for any reason isn't just blocked but removed after a while.
tchernik,
This section has a lot of activity in very few posts and very little on the noise discussions, therefore the later remain clogging the channel and giving the impression that anything goes here, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the case.
I'd prefer to see a couple of very focused and good topics here than a lot of "OMG look at my shiny new Theory of Everything!" from newuser19765.
if conservation within GR is broken by the emdrive, then there is new theoretical work which needs to be done. Shiny or not, let us not through the baby out with the bathwater.
If it is only emdrive experimenters who have direct evidence that conservation within GR is no longer valid, then they have the added responsibility of reproducing their results for the benefit to theoretical physics as well as its benefits to transportation and exploration.
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
My little grudge is against badly prepared discussions, without any reasonable body of evidence (theoretical or experimental) to back them up, usually coming from random newcomers that seem to display a very loose definition of "theory" or "evidence".
The Emdrive and the MEGA drive have a significant amount of theoretical and/or experimental evidence to be above of this quality threshold, in my belief. Besides they are a thing outside this forum, which means there could be a discussion between several informed parties obtaining their information elsewhere.
The same as other more theoretical discussions, like the one about FTL paradoxes. They are speculative, yet have a lot of interesting opinions and reasoned mathematical arguments to also place them inside the on-topic category.
But a random person coming with a new kitchen sink drive or a never before seen theory of antigravity, life and everything should have to demonstrate a lot more than a few paragraphs. This is IMO not the place to start such discussions, just for reflecting those already started by becoming peer reviewed/published papers and demos.
If you have such a good theory or experiment, publish it first and then we can talk about it. -
#1075 by wicoe on 28 Aug, 2017 06:28
-
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community? -
#1076 by Bob Woods on 28 Aug, 2017 07:11
-
Folks, things have gotten testy in the past, but the thread survives.
Maybe just relax, and if someone gets in your face on either side of an issue just don't respond instead of hammering on and on. It's hard to argue if the only response is what you see in the mirror.
Eventually the winner will will be decided by whomever wins the Nobel prize. -
#1077 by TheTraveller on 28 Aug, 2017 08:06
-
A few pages ago I asked if anyone could figure out why Cullen measured reduced end plate radiation pressure as waveguide diameter decreases and why the reduction from standard radiation pressure was equal to
I missed that question among all of the nonsense you posted.
p = (2 * E ) / c) * (external wavelength / guide wavelength)
Found an excellent graphic from XRay that gives a nice hint as attached.
The other atrachment also supplies a hint.
The answer has been known since before Cullen did any experiments, although it should be noted that Cullen used a constant diameter waveguide, not a changing diameter. The diagram you found is accurate, and makes the answer clear enough. It also demonstrates why Shawyer's claim of no radiation pressure on the sidewalls is simply wrong.
Hi Meberbs,
Roger never claimed no side wall radiation pressure. What he said was with good cavity design the side wall radiation pressure could be made insignificant.
BTW you do know Roger has stated that if the EmDrive is not accelerating then there is NO static force generated? Which says that in a static, non accelerating situation, all the radiation pressures equal ZERO?
Seems that for the static, non accelerating condition, you and Roger agree?
At least you and others should now understand the photon impact angle on the end plate decreases as cavity diameter drops and this is what caused the drop in radiation pressure on the end plate Cullen observed. Radiation pressure drops via the square of the cos loss.
p = (2 * E * cos(impact angle)^2) / c
Which is the same as Cullen's
p = ((2 * E) / c) * (wavelength external / guide wavelength)
BTW my work equation of
Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) is correct.
Your use of 50,000N against 3,000kg for 1 sec is clearly incorrect as using the traditional Work = N * distance also results in the Work being OU. Why? Because the dynamics of the EmDrive will not generate 50,000 Ns of force in a dynamic accelerating enviroment. Which is why I created the EmDrive mission calculator as it factors in the dynamics of the EmDrive where N of force generated drop as KE climbs during acceleration.
Which says YES, 50,000N of force applied to accelerate 3,000kg of mass over 1 sec is OU. So instead of using it to claim bad theory and bad equation, maybe take a step back and try to understand that in the EmDrive, force drops as the KE gain of mass during acceleration increases. It is not a static situation but a dynamic situation. So any analysis needs to be done using dynamic equations.
-
#1078 by TheTraveller on 28 Aug, 2017 08:25
-
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
Which is why Roger and I try to explain how the dynamic characterists of the EmDrive obey CofM and CofE.
There are no new physics needed to understand the EmDrive. Just a need to view the physics from a slightly unconventional viewpoint and understand the dynamics of the drive. -
#1079 by ThinkerX on 28 Aug, 2017 10:32
-
Traveler, enough of this:Quote
Which is why Roger and I try to explain how the dynamic characterists of the EmDrive obey CofM and CofE.
There are no new physics needed to understand the EmDrive. Just a need to view the physics from a slightly unconventional viewpoint and understand the dynamics of the drive.
It is past time you presented the results, with accompanying photo's, graphs, and charts, of your own DIY EM Drive project.
Because this other stuff is getting you exactly nowhere. In fact, it is arguably destroying what credibility you did have.
So...
what is your greatest verified thrust?
duration of said thrust?
measurement issues?
thermal issues?
Just for starters.