.........
meberbs, no one is required to respond to or answer any questions. Unless I guess the question comes from a moderator.
It is even possible to put anyone on an ignore list. I don't think TT does that, but there is nothing that requires him to answer any of your questions or comments.
Don't get me wrong. I have never thought Shawyer's theory of operation makes sense and some of the claims of, basically super drives and flying cars can get annoying, while we are still waiting for convincing evidence of even useable mN levels of thrust.
That said constant line by line criticism of almost any post TT makes, also becomes old and redundant.
Here is what I can share of the known operational characterists of an EmDrive. Would suggest alternative theories would need to explain ALL these characterists.
1) force scales linear with Rf power
2) force scales linear with Q. Bit trickey that but it seems to be so.
3) force scales linear with Df. Interesting that as the Df relates to the ratio difference between guide wavelength at each end plate.
4) force drops during constant acceleration. Seems to correlate with accelerated mass KE increase.
5) cavity Q drops during acceleration. Know this as my cavities are pulsed, which allows measurement of the forward power rise time. This enables Q measurement on every Rf pulse.
6) non accelerating cavity does not generate force. Know this from testing on torsion test rigs that stop forward motion when the stored torque in the wire balances EmDrive torque. When that happens the EmDrive stops generating force and the stored torque in the torsion wire forces the EmDrive back to it's starting position. Jamie's tests have shown this effect.
7) non accelerating cavity needs a small one time external force applied to cause small end forward acceleration.
during acceleration small end experiences Red Doppler shift, while big end experiences Blue Doppler shift.
9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.
10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.
11) I don't understand why 10 happens.
Are all of these from personal observation? And once you get to points 8 and 9 it seems you are expressing something more of what you believe than what you may have measured.
By the way, while we are dealing with the very small classical velocities any EmDrive might have under the conditions available so far, any red and blue shifting of the microwave frequencies involved should be almost insignificantly undetectable.., so how could they account for the levels of transferred momentum you predict?
Here is what I can share of the known operational characterists of an EmDrive. Would suggest alternative theories would need to explain ALL these characterists.
1) force scales linear with Rf power
2) force scales linear with Q. Bit trickey that but it seems to be so.
3) force scales linear with Df. Interesting that as the Df relates to the ratio difference between guide wavelength at each end plate.
4) force drops during constant acceleration. Seems to correlate with accelerated mass KE increase.
5) cavity Q drops during acceleration. Know this as my cavities are pulsed, which allows measurement of the forward power rise time. This enables Q measurement on every Rf pulse.
6) non accelerating cavity does not generate force. Know this from testing on torsion test rigs that stop forward motion when the stored torque in the wire balances EmDrive torque. When that happens the EmDrive stops generating force and the stored torque in the torsion wire forces the EmDrive back to it's starting position. Jamie's tests have shown this effect.
7) non accelerating cavity needs a small one time external force applied to cause small end forward acceleration.
during acceleration small end experiences Red Doppler shift, while big end experiences Blue Doppler shift.
9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.
10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.
11) I don't understand why 10 happens.
Are all of these from personal observation? And once you get to points 8 and 9 it seems you are expressing something more of what you believe than what you may have measured.
By the way, while we are dealing with the very small classical velocities any EmDrive might have under the conditions available so far, any red and blue shifting of the microwave frequencies involved should be almost insignificantly undetectable.., so how could they account for the levels of transferred momentum you predict?
Hi OnlyMe,
Yes all from personal observation, with 8 & 9 from calculation.
9 is based on microwave engineering calcs of guide wavelength and 8 is based Doppler shift calculation.
Plus yes right again, neither explain why force is only generated during acceleration. The Doppler shifts may have nothing to do with what ever is causing the force to be generated. However the other points do alter the level of the generated force so any alternative theory needs to work as per 1 thru 7.
I don't understand why people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't) and at the same time gravitation is a member of the fundamental force club. Probably why it hasn't been quantized yet.
Maybe it isn't quantized.
people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't)
MIT Professor Bertschinger disagrees that gravity is not a force, also the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem has to do with the weakness of the gravitational force compared to the other forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong). It is agreed that there are "4 forces: gravity, weak, strong and electromagnetic" look deeper:
The discussions about gravity "not being a force" are pedagogical, trying people to get to understand the geometrical nature of gravity in general relativity as arising from spacetime curvature.
Dr. Rodal,
To some extent I believe this post of yours supports my interpretation of our earlier posts re: whether GR and spacetime might be interpreted as descriptive of gravitation, rather than a causative model.
As a descriptive model of gravitation, GR and spacetime could accommodate gravity as either a force or "not a force". Quantum gravity models would no longer have to mirror the field equations of GR, as long as the force carries, whether particles or fields, provide an energy/momentum structure that can be described as a field consistent with the field equations of GR.
It is easy to describe the propagation and distribution of sound waves, even EM radiation, as geometric fields and still associate both with a transfer of momentum, of one sort or another. In both of those cases we have a far better understanding of the fundamental underlying classical and quantum mechanical mechanisms.
Interpreting GR and spacetime as descriptive, permits the potential for the existence of more fundamental mechanisms, without excluding the possibility of the causative interpretation. While fixation on spacetime as the causative basis of gravitation, does tend to preclude the inclusion and/or incorporation of other potential fundamental mechanisms, which could be described by the same geometric dynamics.
In my opinion there is a lot to be gained from visualizing the action of gravity described by GR. You can begin by placing in your mind a surface at equal distance from a gravitating object where gravity is everywhere the same. Similar surfaces closer to the object will have a stronger time dilation, now resolve in your mind the action by which this geometry causes a smaller object to accelerate downward.
If this gives you difficulty you will not be alone. We interpret the behavior of charges in an electrical field as being caused by a completely different mechanism despite the obvious similarity of their behavior.
In my opinion there may be something to be gained from considering the possibility that electrical (and therefore magnetic) force be the consequence of time dilation also. What does this tell us about the possibility that we reside in a Machian universe where the emdrive is completely logical? Which of our concepts of physical reality must we modify, or abandon, to make a seemless mathematical analysis of this?
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
meberbs, whether you agree with TT's viewpoints or not, the posts from him that I have seen have always been objective and non-confrontational,
How is repeatedly making proclamations that have been repeatedly disproven not confrontational?
What about repeatedly ignoring direct, simple questions?
while you consistently prepend your responses to him with personal attacks:
Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"?
Context matters.
This was after repeated statements from him that indicated he does not know the definition.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand.
This was in response to him posting literal nonsense followed by "This is not difficult to understand."
Or if that is too hard for you try these:
After he had ignored the preceding question twice. His eventual response was a quote from Wikipedia that included irrelevant context. He never did reply to the questions that followed.
You are not an engineer. ... Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.
...
I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.
You said you have been here for a few months, so you probably didn't read far enough back in old threads to see all the times he was asked to define "guide wavelength" in the context of a resonator and failed to do so. Or the conversations where he insisted on the equivalent of saying that pushing an object to the left makes it move to the right.
Finally, you (meberbs) continuously get bogged down arguing back and forth with TT about CoM from a current physics point of view:
The EmDrive works.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.
This argument has been beat to death over and over and over again. Can we please move on until we have a working EMDrive to test against, or until sufficient negative tests have been performed to provide a reliable set of data that most likely the effect does not exist?
Depends, can you get TT to stop proclaiming contradictory statements?
In the absence of a working EMDrive, you are simply postulating that IF the EMDrive works, THEN momentum is either a) not conserved or b) is conserved through an unknown mechanism but have no way to test either of the two theories. Option (c) is that simply, EMDrive does not work in which case everyone should simply stop posting to or following this thread.
Exactly this is all that the momentum argument amounts to. The problem is that TT keeps proposing that momentum is conserved, but unlike in option b there is no unknown mechanism. Him repeatedly insisting on this is counterproductive to serious investigation of the emDrive.
If you disbelieve him entirely, you should just ignore him.
Why should false and contradictory statements be allowed to stand in an open forum without someone pointing out that they are false and contradictory?
As a participant in this thread you must allow for the possibility that maybe it does work by some mechanism; otherwise participating in this thread makes you the troll, not TT, by consistently berating people’s intelligence for proposing theories about how it might work.
I have no problem with people proposing theories. If I see a flaw, I will point it out so the theory can be improved or discarded and the next one looked for. TT refuses to move on and ignores the flaws, claiming they don't exist. It is not berating someone's intelligence to point out a flaw in a theory, coming up with a theory at all is hard. I decline to comment on what it says about someone when their response to criticism is "I'm right, you're wrong. The emDrive works."
TT himself recently stated:
As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.
So, he admits SPR theory may not be correct, and he states that tests "suggest" momentum is conserved.
Yet he continues to insist on design rules following a theory that is inconsistent with itself, which of course leads to inconsistent rules.
TT is entitled to his own opinion, especially IF he has in fact built a working EMDrive. If he has, then he obviously has more experience/data than anyone else commenting in this thread to draw from. Arguing with him serves in no way to advance the EMDrive. Your arguments here that he has not built a working EMDrive is again conjecture based on the lack of hard evidence supporting his claims, not any actual evidence demonstrating that he has unequivocally NOT built such a device.
Go look through the posts again. While I have my doubts about what experiments he has done, I generally have been leaving that as an unknown and addressing his understanding of the definition of a force and similar issues. Others have been more directly vocal about his unreliability as a witness, which is based on years of empty promises from him.
TT's claims, whether factual or non-factual, inflict no personal injury on yourself or others, other than the costs of time and money it may incur trying to prove/disprove these claims by experimentation. However, were it not for these claims, then this thread and these experiments would not exist at all.
If his nonsensical claims are left to stand as if correct, it harms the quality of this site, which is the best resource for information on the space industry I have found. Also, some of what he says about how to run an experiment is based on nonsense contradictory to how forces work. If anyone listens to the problematic and contradictory bits of advice, it will interfere with them running a good experiment that can settle the issue.
Meberbs,
Why do you feel that it is your job to take down TT? What's in it for you? All you have to do is state you assertions (which you already have done), then patiently wait for proof of a working/not working EMDrive. Then you can triumphantly come out and claim vindication. You don't have to take over over the thread and you don't have to play the role of physics Messiah. The truth will reveal itself on its own.
Having such strong assertions regarding our current understanding of physics will only serve to make for an even harder fall if EMDrive does in fact work. If EMDrive works, then we will be able to safely assume that you (as well as all of us) do not know as much as we think we do. We could be at a point in physics comparable to our knowledge of physics pre-Albert Einstein.
Bottom line is, Let it go. This debate will not be settled with words, it will be settled with hardware.
You are also in error about the 'new or unexplained physical forces.' Put bluntly, if it works as advertised, then it stands in violation of both Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum.
Must be magic then, or at least that's the claim when people don't understand science. Truth is the science is basic, expected, and doesn't violate anything. It is only people that don't understand what they're seeing that start crying foul or claiming new science.
That's not to say new science doesn't exist, it does as is the case of BLP's sub-ground state. It's just not the case here.
So are you endorsing Shawyer's "theory" here? Because he is the only one who claims the emDrive doesn't need new physics. The countless problems with Shawyer's claims have been thoroughly discussed here.
Meberbs,
I cannot speak for Meberbs, but I'll share my view on this since I think I understand where he's coming from...
Why do you feel that it is your job to take down TT? What's in it for you?
I think it's the job of any scientist or science enthusiast to "take down" utter nonsense, whoever it is coming from. By "taking down" I don't mean insulting the author(s), but rather pointing out the obvious inconsistencies and asking additional questions.
All you have to do is state you assertions (which you already have done), then patiently wait for proof of a working/not working EMDrive. Then you can triumphantly come out and claim vindication. You don't have to take over over the thread and you don't have to play the role of physics Messiah. The truth will reveal itself on its own.
This has nothing to do with the question of whether EmDrive works or not. It has to do with a specific "explanation" of how it works, which is logically inconsistent and clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of Newthon's laws and other fundamentals.
Having such strong assertions regarding our current understanding of physics will only serve to make for an even harder fall if EMDrive does in fact work. If EMDrive works, then we will be able to safely assume that you (as well as all of us) do not know as much as we think we do. We could be at a point in physics comparable to our knowledge of physics pre-Albert Einstein.
I would just like to note that Einstein did not disprove Newton's law, he
improved it. Breaking CoM/CoE and creating "free energy" machines is a completely different story.
Bottom line is, Let it go. This debate will not be settled with words, it will be settled with hardware.
I'm afraid it will never be settled... there will be an ever-growing list of requirements (see a recent TT post) that will be harder and harder to satisfy, and any experiment demonstrating a null thrust will be ignored by EmDrive proponents. Same goes for experiments showing small amounts of "thrust", which will be discarded as systematic errors by the other side (which is far more likely, as has been shown by many in this thread).
A couple of 'financial' things to respond to. I would dispute the assertion that SPR is in financial trouble, or has been recently. There are two reasons to say that. Firstly, for several years SPR has made no material loss, but rather has been in profit or flat. Yes, equity is negative, but that is because it has 'interest free, indefinite term loans' on its books. There are strong indications that around 40% of those loans are from Shawyer himself. He has slowly been paying these off, as would be honourable although probably marginally against his personal financial interest (the other people he pays back will take more than the taxman if he paid himself wages).
SPR looks like a personal-services shell company through which Shawyer can route consultancy or other personal income, pay himself a small wage and occasionally log some profits to pay off some of the company's long term debt. BUT disclosure is so poor that there could be a healthy IP revenue stream going straight into his pocket, and we would be none the wiser: SPR would have income but no profit, as costs (his wages) match income. SPR files no P&L, it is too small to need to, so both of these scenarios are pure conjecture.
Someone mentioned Jamie and Shawyers workshop. Again, stuff could be hidden or completely written off, but SPR has £238 in fixed assets - not a typo. Probably less than Jamie's test rig.
Lastly, on Universal Propulsion: the company was founded with Gilo Cardozo (personally) as 60% shareholder on 29-Jun-16. On the same day there is a record of Gilo Industries Group having control of the company. So it is wrong to say that Gilo has taken or increased its control - it always had it. Shawyer and his buddy Sheridan remain the sole directors of UP.
For those who enjoy coincidences, when UP was incorporated, the address of Gilo Industries Research (a wholly owned subsidiary of Gilo Industries Group) was moved from the address of Gilo Industries Group to the same address at which UP was incorporated. Gilo Industries research shows evidence of material activity in 2016, at least in as far as it received R&D tax credits.
Finally, I have to concur with previous poster who said the traffic around TT/personal insults might well attract the attention of moderators. This forum is a great source on the EMdrive, let's keep it, even if that means biting our tongues on occasions.
You are also in error about the 'new or unexplained physical forces.' Put bluntly, if it works as advertised, then it stands in violation of both Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum.
Must be magic then, or at least that's the claim when people don't understand science. Truth is the science is basic, expected, and doesn't violate anything. It is only people that don't understand what they're seeing that start crying foul or claiming new science.
That's not to say new science doesn't exist, it does as is the case of BLP's sub-ground state. It's just not the case here.
So are you endorsing Shawyer's "theory" here? Because he is the only one who claims the emDrive doesn't need new physics. The countless problems with Shawyer's claims have been thoroughly discussed here.
A better understanding of the physics we already have is good enough.
Chinese design reminiscent of Cannae slots?
Chinese design reminiscent of Cannae slots?
No, different electromagnetic field distribution. Different mode shapes. Very different scale and distribution.
They have a very different approach to propellant-less propulsion. Not following the approach of Shaywer or the one of Fetta. Similarity is just that they all are electromagnetically resonant cavities. Guiding principles are different.
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust.
There are no other examples of working EmDrives:
- all EmDrives publicly known to date, from Eagleworks to TU Dresden through DIYers, develop so little thrust that the measured force can still be mistaken with thermal or EM effects. Or the cavity develops a force of the same magnitude as the axial one, but laterally (Tajmar) which ruins the whole demonstration.
- Yang Juan withdrawn her prior very high thrust measurements, stating that when the energy source is moved onto the setup (admittedly a much lighter and lower power one) and is not external anymore, the thrust force almost disappears within the noise i.e. below the resolution accuracy of her torsion pendulum. And yes I agree the setup described in her last paper was poorly designed and could not detect a force even if it was present due to the stiffness of the three steel wires, but precisely this fact alone highlights how the thrust produced is so low. A problem of low specific force you claim to have overcome.
- Shawyer's public rotary test rig, not even enclosed in a transparent cage (to protect it from ambient convection air currents) used an air bearing with several rotating cooling fans onboard, blowing hot air asymmetrically. It would have rotated without any EmDrive. But he never subsequently showed an updated solid-state fanless setup.
- Eagleworks' rotary test rig leaked video is also plagued with spurious forces that are not related to the cavity, according to Paul March himself.
- All EmDrives developing a very high specific thrust that may exist at SPR, private aerospace companies, army labs, etc… are kept secret, so that no EmDrive has been definitely proven to work yet. This fact alone demonstrates the whole problem. If the technology was already "demonstrated" outside of small circles, the race would currently be in the industry, not done secretly in private and defense R&D labs.
You seem to not understand the necessity to demonstrate the EmDrive validity to the general public and wider science circles outside the circles of "people in the know" of which you became a part of.
Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.
So no need to wait for me to become a believer.
We already know that you are a believer. The purpose of a public demonstrator on a rotary test rig is not intended to prove the EmDrive is working to you of course, but to everyone else.
Flux-Capacitor:
You stated in this post:
"- Shawyer's public rotary test rig, not even enclosed in a transparent cage (to protect it from ambient convection air currents) used an air bearing with several rotating cooling fans onboard, blowing hot air asymmetrically.
It would have rotated without any EmDrive. But he never subsequently showed an updated solid-state fanless setup."
I've seen people on this forum and elsewhere repeatedly make this claim when it is incorrect. Please go back to Shawyer's EMdrive demonstrator engine web page and note the following comments made by Mr. Shawyer. The various highlighted text are inserted by me for emphasis.
http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html "To obtain the predicted thrust the engine must maintain stable resonance at this high Q value. Major design challenges have included thermal compensation,
tuning control and source matching."
Then go to:
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html and read Shawyer's first two comments in his notes section.
"Notes on Test video:
1. The
field strengths within the thruster equate to a
power level of 17MW. Signal leakage causes EMC effects within the fixed video camera. This leads to the apparent vertical movements.
2.
The engine only starts to accelerate when the magnetron frequency locks to the resonant frequency of the thruster, following an initial warm up period.
This test operation eliminates possible spurious forces."
Lastly go to the
full length video, fullDMtest188.mpg (full version 43.3MB), and play it for yourself. You will note that the dynamic test rig
does NOT start acceleration
UNTIL cavity frequency lock is obtained as noted by Mr. Shawyer's verbal comments during this test video. I'm assuming here that Mr. Shawyer is an honest man that tells it like he saw it.
Best, Paul M.
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Yes, but the issue is not whether it does or does not. The issue is how big it is and whether it would make sense. An electron has mass. The whole Universe has mass. However it does not make sense to say that something that one observes happening in the whole Universe also must similarly happen to an electron. One has to take into account the scale of the phenomenon.
People should compare the extremely small amplitude of the gravitational wave measured from the plunge and coalescence of two big black holes vs. what would be the amplitude of a gravitational field produced by an electromagnetically resonant cavity. It is evident that the gravitational wave from an EM Drive is so extremely small that is nothing compared to the momentum from any other disturbance present in the experimental environment. When people discuss gravitational waves from the EM Drive they just write
words: I invite them to make a calculation of its magnitude so that they understand how negligibly small it is. Engineers and scientists use numbers rather than words. At least let's compare orders of magnitudes.
Comparing both would be like comparing the mass of a big black hole to the mass of the EM Drive
mass of black holes involved in recent gravitational wave measurements: 36 and 29 solar masses
3*10
31 kg
so comparing the mass of the black holes involved in the recent gravitational wave experiments to the mass of the EM Drive is like comparing the mass of the proton to your mass
or like comparing your mass to the mass of the Sun. Both you and the Sun have mass. The Sun attracts all the planets: it is responsible for us being here. Neither you or I appreciable attract any planets, and we should not make arguments that because the Sun makes the planets go into orbits we should similarly make particles go into orbits around us.
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Yes, but the issue is not whether it does or does not. The issue is how big it is and whether it would make sense. An electron has mass. The whole Universe has mass. However it does not make sense to say that something that one observes happening in the whole Universe also must similarly happen to an electron. One has to take into account the scale of the phenomenon.
People should compare the extremely small amplitude of the gravitational wave measured from the plunge and coalescence of two big black holes vs. what would be the amplitude of a gravitational field produced by an electromagnetically resonant cavity. It is evident that the gravitational wave from an EM Drive is so extremely small that is nothing compared to the momentum from any other disturbance present in the experimental environment. When people discuss gravitational waves from the EM Drive they just write words: I invite them to make a calculation of its magnitude so that they understand how negligibly small it is. Engineers and scientists use numbers rather than words. At least let's compare orders of magnitudes.
Comparing both would be like comparing the mass of a big black hole to the mass of the EM Drive
mass of black holes involved in recent gravitational wave measurements: 36 and 29 solar masses
3*1031 kg
so comparing the mass of the black holes involved in the recent gravitational wave experiments to the mass of the EM Drive is like comparing the mass of the proton to your mass
or like comparing your mass to the mass of the Sun. Both you and the Sun have mass. The Sun attracts all the planets: it is responsible for us being here. Neither you or I appreciable attract any planets, and we should not make arguments that because the Sun makes the planets go into orbits we should similarly make particles go into orbits around us.
Jose':
For locally derived gravitational effects I concur that E&M generated gravitational effects are extremely small in magnitude. However for globally derived inertial reaction forces that come about from the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe, these E&M driven transient inertial forces can be as large as normal Newtonian reaction forces per Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture.
Best, Paul M.
...
Jose':
For locally derived gravitational effects I concur that E&M generated gravitational effects are extremely small in magnitude. ...
The question I answered was concerning
gravitational waves and not about gravitational effects in general.
The question was:
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Please notice the huge difference between gravitational waves and gravitational forces. When the Sun attracts the Earth into an orbit, we are not discussing gravitational waves.
Just because the words all start with "gravitational" it does not mean that all gravitational effects are of the same order of amplitude.
It is this conflation of everything "gravitational" as being the same that I want to prevent and people to realize the scale of what is being discussed.
Gravitational
waves produced by the coalescence of 30 solar masses massive objects, when passing through the Earth have a strain (change in length divided by original length) amplitude of h ≈ 10^(−20).
Let's realize how small this is ! It took decades of the highest technology to be able to measure it!
And how ludicrous small would be the gravitational wave of an EM Drive, just based on the electromagnetically resonant energy in the EM Drive.
So small as to make it so unlikely to that gravitational waves from Shawyer's EM Drive would have any
space flight applications. If the effect is real it must be something else. Otherwise someone has to explain what would be responsible for magnifying a gravitational wave to such an extent. It is like saying that the mass of a human can have the same spacetime wave effect on an object as the mass of the Sun.
Gravitational waves produced by the coalescence of massive objects, when passing through the Earth have a strain (change in length divided by original length) amplitude of h ≈ 10^(−20).
Let's realize how small this is ! It took decades of the highest technology to be able to measure it!
And how ludicrous small would be the gravitational wave of an EM Drive, just based on the electromagnetically resonant energy in the EM Drive.
I agree with the thrust of the post... however.
These events were many lightyears away, hence necessitating said technology. Proximity matters, I think. Or do I misunderstand how gravitational waves work?
Gravitational waves produced by the coalescence of massive objects, when passing through the Earth have a strain (change in length divided by original length) amplitude of h ≈ 10^(−20).
Let's realize how small this is ! It took decades of the highest technology to be able to measure it!
And how ludicrous small would be the gravitational wave of an EM Drive, just based on the electromagnetically resonant energy in the EM Drive.
I agree with the thrust of the post... however.
These events were many lightyears away, hence necessitating said technology. Proximity matters, I think. Or do I misunderstand how gravitational waves work?
Kip Thorne, Thibault Damour, Blanchet (*) and others have analyzed what happens as the gravitational waves travel through space and go through other celestial bodies before reaching us. The magnitude of this effect decreases proportional to the inverse distance from the source.
Notice: not proportional to the square of the inverse -like Newtonian gravitational forces-, but proportional to the inverse. Thus the decay with distance is much smaller than the decay of Newtonian gravitational forces. On the other hand the dimensionless strain amplitude is proportional to the second derivative of the mass distribution of the source and inversely proportional to the distance from the source. .The bottom line is that the gravitational waves produced by Shawyer's EM Drive have extremely small amplitude even when something is next to it. The experimental artifacts of myriads of things in these experiments are a huge orders of magnitude larger: thermal convection (when performing the experiments at ambient pressure), thermal expansion and Lorentz electromagnetic effects (both present even in a vacuum) are a huge order of magnitude larger.
Cannot have microNewton forces f
rom Shawyer's EM Drive due to gravitational waves.
If you would, such an effect from gravitational waves would have been noticed in myriads of other experiments and natural phenomena.
Spacetime is very stiff. It is very difficult to make spacetime ripple like a wave.To do that you need binary orbiting black holes or neutron stars.
As a loose analogy, proximity also matters as to Newtonian gravitational forces, yet you do not have particles orbiting around you due to gravitation and the electron does not orbit around the nucleus due to gravitation. The mass of the object has a
massive effect on the effects [pardon the pun]
-------------
(*) Thorne, Damour and Blanchet's theoretical predictions have been excellently matched by experiments and nowadays by numerical relativity. So nobody can argue that this is "just mathematics". Otherwise what do we have when discussing gravitational waves? mysticism? Gravitational waves from the EM Drive are not at all like what is understood as gravitational waves? If it it is not the same "gravitational wave" then other word should be used to describe such an anomalous effect...And you have to compare the magnitude of such forces with the magnitude of other forces (electromagnetic, etc.) when in close proximity
Notice: not proportional to the square of the inverse -like Newtonian gravitational forces-, but proportional to the inverse. Thus the decay with distance is much smaller than the decay of Newtonian gravitational forces. On the other hand the dimensionless strain amplitude is proportional to the second derivative of the mass distribution of the source and inversely proportional to the distance from the source.
Slightly irrelevant question. Is this the amplitude of the wave that decreases inversely with distance? (i.e. physical length change as measured by a gravitational wave detector)
In waves such as electromagnetic waves, energy and momentum density are proportional to the square of the field strength. This means that while the energy per unit area (power per area if you are talking continuous and not short burst) in the wave decreases with the square of the distance, the field strength would only decrease linearly. I'd expect similar statements to be true for gravitational waves.
during acceleration small end experiences Red Doppler shift, while big end experiences Blue Doppler shift.
