-
#1400 by tchernik on 09 Sep, 2017 20:54
-
My conclusion is that it is much more probable that this is not a deception. That the Chinese saw the EM Drive as a lottery ticket, as an out-of-the-money option: an R&D project that is very cheap to investigate and that has an unlikely big payoff. If the likely (*) outcome takes place that it does not work in space, then they lost very little in money. If it does work, then they reap a huge payoff for a very small amount of money.
(*) Why likely? due to the lack of an accepted theoretical explanation as to why it should work
Agree on all fronts.
For me this is not a military deception, or it would be an extremely poor one.
It's either real or an internal scam.
It can be an internal fraud, though. That is not unheard of (remember the straddle bus affair? http://fortune.com/2017/07/04/straddling-bus-arrests-investment-scam/ ). But given the public visibility of the effort (this is already in the official media over there), I doubt it has not passed some basic checkups.
I guess only time will tell. -
#1401 by Mulletron on 09 Sep, 2017 21:40
-
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
How can an object accelerate "relative to the trapped photons"? Acceleration only makes sense relative to a certain reference frame. You cannot associate a reference frame with a photon because it always propagates with the same speed in ANY reference frame.
A couple things. An EMdrive (or anything else like my phone's accelerometer) just sitting on a test stand is accelerating up at 1g TT. Perhaps it's better to have the cavity oriented vertically? Also, a system of 2 (or more) nonparallel (not going in the same direction) photons has a rest frame, where total momentum is zero. You can accelerate relative to that. The key is to forget about single photons and use the invariant mass of the system of counterpropagating photons instead.
-
#1402 by Mulletron on 09 Sep, 2017 21:51
-
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
This is not difficult to understand.
Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)
P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.
You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
Hi Bob,
What happens to the photons trapped inside the cavity is explained by microwave physics and the Compton Effect that defines each time a photon impacts an orbital electron of a metallic atom both CofE and CofM are in effect.
Roger has stated many times that if the cavity is not accelerating relative to the trapped photons, NO FORCE IS GENERATED. Roger has also stated that the cavity needs an external force to be applied to initiale small end forward acceleration.
So the question should be: Why does acceleration produce an asymmetric force that supports self sustained acceleration?
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too. -
#1403 by moreno7798 on 09 Sep, 2017 23:53
-
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?
If it works I think it works without such complications. I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.
I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system. -
#1404 by RotoSequence on 10 Sep, 2017 00:11
-
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.
Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state? -
#1405 by Rodal on 10 Sep, 2017 00:18
-
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.
Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small -
#1406 by RotoSequence on 10 Sep, 2017 00:43
-
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.
Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small
I don't grok it.
How is this believed to manifest itself alongside the speed of gravitation being the same as the speed of light?
-
#1407 by Rodal on 10 Sep, 2017 01:04
-
In these M-theories the extra dimension(s) are not far away at the edge of the Universe but they are next to you. You have to imagine ourselves and all particles we are familiar with as being only on the membrane in which we live in, unaware of the extra dimension(s) perpendicular to us, only gravity being able to leak through. Imagine yourself being an ant living on the surface of a huge ball having a diameter measuring billions of light years, unaware of the three-dimensional space around you, but gravity being able to leak through the 3D space perpendicular to the surface of the ball. Thus gravity does not have to travel to the edge of the Universe to leak, but it is leaking all around us into unobservable dimensions that are next to you (not far away). Thus there is no time issue involved with gravity having to travel long distances constrained to the speed of light, because gravity does not have to travel big circles on the ball but just a very small distance perpendicular to the surface. And we have no means to sense or experience those dimensions perpendicular to us because we are made of particles and fields that are constrained to exist on the surface alone.If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.
Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small
I don't grok it. How is this believed to manifest itself alongside the speed of gravitation being the same as the speed of light -
#1408 by WarpTech on 10 Sep, 2017 02:53
-
I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.
Possibly, but did you read this?
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2016.69.331
The abstract is all you need, to know how it turned out.
-
#1409 by WarpTech on 10 Sep, 2017 03:02
-
In these M-theories the extra dimension(s) are not far away at the edge of the Universe but they are next to you. You have to imagine ourselves and all particles we are familiar with as being only on the membrane in which we live in, unaware of the extra dimension(s) perpendicular to us, only gravity being able to leak through. Imagine yourself being an ant living on the surface of a huge ball having a diameter measuring billions of light years, unaware of the three-dimensional space around you, but gravity being able to leak through the 3D space perpendicular to the surface of the ball. Thus gravity does not have to travel to the edge of the Universe to leak, but it is leaking all around us into unobservable dimensions that are next to you (not far away). Thus there is no time issue involved with gravity having to travel long distances constrained to the speed of light, because gravity does not have to travel big circles on the ball but just a very small distance perpendicular to the surface. And we have no means to sense or experience those dimensions perpendicular to us because we are made of particles and fields that are constrained to exist on the surface alone.If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.
Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small
I don't grok it. How is this believed to manifest itself alongside the speed of gravitation being the same as the speed of light
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric. -
#1410 by Rodal on 10 Sep, 2017 04:08
-
...
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane! Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C. Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom. Aristotle was wrong. But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms. Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC. That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence. Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it
-
#1411 by WarpTech on 10 Sep, 2017 05:02
-
As to whether the EM Drive is an open or closed system. See Appendix B (Below) from P.W. Milonni's, The Quantum Vacuum. This derivation shows that an atom in a thermal field can experience a frictional force, proportional to the velocity.
In a zero-point field (ZPF) however, the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3. When this condition is met, the force, F goes to zero. In the case of the EM Drive, it's not operating at zero temperature, so the entire thing is immersed in a thermal field. All the atoms are "open" to interact with the thermal field, both inside and outside the frustum. The MW's inside the frustum, assure that the thermal field inside is not symmetrical to the thermal field outside.
The question is, what is the spectral energy density of the thermal field inside and outside the frustum? And: Is it the optimal spectrum for stimulated emission in copper?
-
#1412 by flux_capacitor on 10 Sep, 2017 12:42
-
As to whether the EM Drive is an open or closed system. See Appendix B (Below) from P.W. Milonni's, The Quantum Vacuum. This derivation shows that an atom in a thermal field can experience a frictional force, proportional to the velocity.
{…}
According to your point of view, a "closed system" cannot exist (aside from the whole universe). Indeed, any electromagnetic or even any mechanical device doing some work produces and radiate heat.
The question boils down to this: Can a specific effect relying on an asymmetric heating of a closed device, coupled with the propagation of photons or charged particles within this device, can lead to a thrust force able to accelerate the device with an efficiency greater than the efficiency of a perfect photon rocket?
Said otherwise: can the effect be greater than the momentum of the infrared photons (i.e. heat) expelled out of the closed device? -
#1413 by SeeShells on 10 Sep, 2017 12:59
-
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..
Quote from: Chen Yue
[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.
Very nice work...
Since we all are poking a stick at what we see on the Chinese Drive.
I see what looks like an RF feed into the sidewall near the top endplate, not the center of the end plate of the device like you excited. I would not expect them to feed the coax through to the center area like you show, you'll have issues running a coax through the EM fields.
Is it possible for you to model that design? A loop will be needed locking into the B field enhancing a TE mode.
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#1414 by X_RaY on 10 Sep, 2017 14:20
-
Hi Michelle,Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..
Quote from: Chen Yue
[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.
Very nice work...
Since we all are poking a stick at what we see on the Chinese Drive.
I see what looks like an RF feed into the sidewall near the top endplate, not the center of the end plate of the device like you excited. I would not expect them to feed the coax through to the center area like you show, you'll have issues running a coax through the EM fields.
Is it possible for you to model that design? A loop will be needed locking into the B field enhancing a TE mode.
My Very Best,
Shell
i noted that but at the moment i have another problem with that. The cavity i modeled seems too large compared to the one in the picture. Also in the english translation of the chinese patent the dimensions are in diameter.
At the time i set up the model i used the dimensions direct from the text to be diameters, but then the cavity don't looks like that in the sketch attached.
I thought there maybe was a translation error and therefore i swiched to use the values as radii. So the resonator looks similar to the sketch.
Based on the new picture i am not sure if this was the right decision.
Of course i can model it with a source near the sidewall but first we should solve the discrepancy with the diameter.Quote from: Chen Yue[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^
-
#1415 by SeeShells on 10 Sep, 2017 15:05
-
Also we don't know if the pillbox cavity orientation is correct. In the video captured picture he could have the rings towards the top of the pillbox. There are lots of unknowns just trying to decipher what this is.
Hi Michelle,Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..
Quote from: Chen Yue
[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.
Very nice work...
Since we all are poking a stick at what we see on the Chinese Drive.
I see what looks like an RF feed into the sidewall near the top endplate, not the center of the end plate of the device like you excited. I would not expect them to feed the coax through to the center area like you show, you'll have issues running a coax through the EM fields.
Is it possible for you to model that design? A loop will be needed locking into the B field enhancing a TE mode.
My Very Best,
Shell
i noted that but at the moment i have another problem with that. The cavity i modeled seems too large compared to the one in the picture. Also in the english translation of the chinese patent the dimensions are in diameter.
At the time i set up the model i used the dimensions direct from the text to be diameters, but then the cavity don't looks like that in the sketch attached.
I thought there maybe was a translation error and therefore i swiched to use the values as radii. So the resonator looks similar to the sketch.
Based on the new picture i am not sure if this was the right decision.
Of course i can model it with a source near the sidewall but first we should solve the discrepancy with the diameter.Quote from: Chen Yue[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^
But think about this approach Xray, maybe we can just use the ratios of those numbers instead of the finite numbers he provided? Frequency will shift but as long as we tune to the chamber and the antenna creating our standing wave structures, they will still be the same modes.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#1416 by flux_capacitor on 10 Sep, 2017 15:23
-
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
-
#1417 by Rodal on 10 Sep, 2017 15:35
-
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
And more strikingly, all of this while the 2015 TU Dresden report repeatedly thanks Shawyer for his guidance and advice during the project. A project which resulted in the lowest Q for an EM Drive on experimental records (much lower than the Q obtained in Do-It-Yourself experiments): Q=48, while TT posts now guidelines from "Roger" (impossible for me to independently ascertain whether these guidelines were indeed authored by Shawyer) demanding << Manufacturing tolerance should be around ±0.01mm>> and <<a Q of at least 50,000>> for such cavities, which is 1,000 times greater than the Q for the TU Dresden EM Drive done, according to the report, under guidance from Shawyer
(*) one minor caveat. I would not generalize to << such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West>> as it is not plaguing the West. That is just one case. The work by X_Ray and Monomorphic has been quite precise in comparison, and Paul March + Eagleworks has been extremely cooperative with information on precision and information. -
#1418 by flux_capacitor on 10 Sep, 2017 15:52
-
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
And more strikingly, all of this while the 2015 TU Dresden report repeatedly thanks Shawyer for his guidance and advice during the project. A project which resulted in the lowest Q for an EM Drive on experimental records (much lower than the Q obtained in Do-It-Yourself experiments): Q=48, while TT posts now guidelines from "Roger" (impossible for me to independently ascertain whether these guidelines were indeed authored by Shawyer) demanding << Manufacturing tolerance should be around ±0.01mm>> and <<a Q of at least 50,000>> for such cavities, which is 1,000 times greater than the Q for the TU Dresden EM Drive done, according to the report, under guidance from Shawyer
As you met Martin Tajmar at the Estes Park conference, do you know what he had to say about the reason for such failure in the Q factor of his resonant cavity?
My three hypotheses:
1- completely wrong and poor design, partly due to the giant hole in the side wall (WR340 waveguide the size of the cavity height)
or
2- poor reflectivity of copper plate surfaces due to their rapid oxidization
or
3- cavity operating not at optimal resonance, as the microwave generator was a 2.45GHz commercial magnetron, whereas Tajmar later stated his cavity was designed to operate over 3GHz
I think (1) played a role in the anomalous force measured laterally whereas it shouldn't had to
I also think (2) is evident as a rapid decay of the Q factor was observed through time by Tajmar.
But even as soon as the device was built with shinny surfaces, the Q was already catastrophic from the very beginning. So I thin (3) is the most critical cause.
Did Tajmar discovered that his cavity was not able to operate properly with a 2.45GHz source before or after he started designing and testing it? Tajmar said that they had to use a commercial magnetron instead of a tuneable professional microwave generator due to lack of funding. Maybe Shawyer early proposed the design to be operated with such a generator that Tajmar later discovered he couldn't afford?
If Shawyer proposed a 2.45GHz magnetron to use with this design, I agree it's pathetic. But if the story I have just imagined went this way, it is just not Shawyer's fault, despite being still a pathetic story. -
#1419 by Rodal on 10 Sep, 2017 16:00
-
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
And more strikingly, all of this while the 2015 TU Dresden report repeatedly thanks Shawyer for his guidance and advice during the project. A project which resulted in the lowest Q for an EM Drive on experimental records (much lower than the Q obtained in Do-It-Yourself experiments): Q=48, while TT posts now guidelines from "Roger" (impossible for me to independently ascertain whether these guidelines were indeed authored by Shawyer) demanding << Manufacturing tolerance should be around ±0.01mm>> and <<a Q of at least 50,000>> for such cavities, which is 1,000 times greater than the Q for the TU Dresden EM Drive done, according to the report, under guidance from Shawyer
As you met Martin Tajmar at the Estes Park conference, do you know what he had to say about the reason for such failure in the Q factor of his resonant cavity?
...
He was very open about it, and completely consistent with what he wrote in the TU Dresden report:QuoteThe Q factor measurement was then done using a spectrum analyzer (see Fig. 3a). Unfortunately, the absorption peak at the resonance we were aiming at was smaller then expected (probably also due to misalignments after soldering). We calculated the Q factor using the difference of the frequencies on both sides of the peak (f1, f2) as well as the resonance frequency f0: 8.48GHz4.2GHz45.2GHz44.2120=−=−=fffQ(1) This Q factor is of course much smaller compared to the models from Shawyer, Yang and Brady (which was in the range of 10,000 – 100,000). A much larger resonance peak appeared above 3 GHz, but as we did not have a variable frequency microwave source we had to stick to Q≈50. As our magnetron had an output power of 700 W, we expected a thrust of 98.2 μN according to Shawyer’s models. This was much higher than the resolution of our measurement equipment (< 0.1 μN) and we therefore decided to go ahead with testing and explore this low Q factor regime
Bold added for emphasis
(17) Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280576708_Direct_Thrust_Measurements_of_an_EM_Drive_and_Evaluation_of_Possible_Side-Effects [accessed Sep 10, 2017].
It is striking that Shawyer advised on this work, and that Shawyer later used this Q=48 measurement in his plots of measured thrust vs Shawyer-predicted-thrust vs Q, vis-a-vis the posted guidelines demanding << Manufacturing tolerance should be around ±0.01mm>> and <<a Q of at least 50,000>> for such cavities
According to these recent guidelines of Q>50,000 not only the TU Dresden work disappears but also NASA Eagleworks and a test by SPR Ltd.in the plot shown in the presentation (UK Defence Academy) reproduced below, which have Q<10,000=104 as shown in the plot below
So the recent guidelines *<<a Q of at least 50,000>> may be interpreted "in order to get specific thrust exceeding 100 mN/kW" according to this plot
* https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903
How is this believed to manifest itself alongside the speed of gravitation being the same as the speed of light?
