-
#1640 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2017 02:32
-
...
This is more of a reason why not to treat people like Mach as experts on everything they opined about.
Dr Rodal,
I suspect we will all be proven to have simplistic notions of physical reality, given the passage of enough time. Mach's supersonic flow experiments were vital to the development of supersonic aerodynamics and rocketry. His pursuit of answers to questions raised by Newton's bucket is as relevant today as it ever was.
Mach made an abominable error in denying the existence of atoms in the 20th century, so don't take Mach as an authority on atomic physics. Give Mach his due for his work on experimental supersonic flow. But his opinions on Einstein's theory of relativity and on atomic physics were just plain wrong. -
#1641 by WarpTech on 16 Sep, 2017 02:39
-
You said that the coordinate speed of light is c/K. If you do not have a constant "c" then saying that the coordinate speed of light is c/K does not make sense.The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.
Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.
This is not true in the PV Model of GR.
The constant "c" could vary with space as well, but you have said "they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1" which implies only the coordinate speed of light is varying in this theory and not the constant c that is used to calculate it.
If your issue is with the second sentence you quoted, then you just need to read that sentence again because it is very nearly tautological.
We use the frame of a distant observer, far from gravitational fields to determine what K is. In this reference frame, c/K is what is measured non-locally, it's not constant and neither is G, ε0 or μ0. Read the papers, you will learn something.
Yes, c/K, the coordinate speed of light is not constant, and variations in the coordinate speed of light are a well known part of GR. However, you did not say that G/(c/K)^4 = constant, you said that G/c^4 = constant. The first implies a variable G, the second does not. You could define something like "coordinate G" = G/K^4 and that would be variable, but G itself would still be a constant. I don't have to read any other paper to recognize contradictory statements.
Your arguments are about semantics of how I'm not writing what I mean in the same way you would write it. All I can say is this is a forum for discussion, not a peer reviewed paper. I've been discussing the PV Model with my peers for nearly 20 years, and they have no problem understanding me. The issue is, you like to nitpick instead of trying to understand. You obviously enjoy it!This was the original work where all of the tests of GR are reproduced by the PV representation, published by Springer:
Except that is simply not true as shown by this more recent paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302273
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativityQuoteThe theory predicts a radiation power from a binary system that is 2/3 that predicted by GR, and so incompatible with observed orbital decay rate of PSR 1913 + 16.
This is true. However, in 2005, Joe Depp corrected the equations of motion in Puthoff's paper and showed that the true solution is the Schwarzschild solution, not the exponential one that Ibison used in 2003.
https://www.scribd.com/document/17130549/Polarizable-Vacuum-PV-and-the-Schwarzschild-Solution
I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum
You're not up to date on the model!
The latest paper on the topic is the one I published in the proceedings from Estes Park last year, that derives this model from quantum mechanics, using Puthoff's latest paper on quantum ground states in SED. Which I have since corroborated with P.W. Milloni, that the same thing occurs in QED.
Anyway, the whole point of this conversation was simply that, in the frame of a distant observer outside the gravitational fields being observed,
cK = c/K
GK = G/K4
Where, c and G are "constants". Happy?
In the PV Model, ALL forces are independent of K. Since the Planck Force is also a force that must be invariant in a gravitational field;
cK4/GK = c4/G, Hence; GK = G/K4
This is a necessary fact of the model, so that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in a gravitational field.
-
#1642 by jay343 on 16 Sep, 2017 02:44
-
I have a question about the forces normally associated with electromagnetic fields, and whether or not they are always symmetrical. Consider the attached diagram. It represents a dipole in free space emitting intense radio waves, and a small electric dipole that is spinning at the same frequency as the radio waves, and is stationary relative to the antenna. Since the frequencies are matched, the near surface of the spinning dipole will always encounter the same electric polarity on the approaching wavefront. Consequently, it will experience a net force. In fact, you should be able to position the electric dipole anywhere in the antenna's near field by slightly varying the frequency of the radio transmitter. When the relationship of the electric dipole charge and the approaching wavefront charge is repulsive (pushing the electric dipole away), the wavefront is free to slow down and morph around the electric dipole. On the other hand, when the net force is attractive, it seems as if the electromagnetic field would be stiffer (from the point of view of the electric dipole), because the wavefront cannot be pulled forward faster than the speed of light. Could this be force rectification?
-
#1643 by dustinthewind on 16 Sep, 2017 05:31
-
where is the bridge going into? if it comes back into our own Universe, shouldn't it display the other end of the bridge as a white hole? If so why is there no experimental evidence of such white holes (which should be easier to detect than black holes).The problem with the view that
Quotethe black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces
is
1) proving the stability of such a bridge, which appears unstable unless it contains negative mass-energy
2) the existence of another space is reminiscent of bridges in M-theory's multiverse, there is no experimental proof to decide between different theories (because black holes are...black)
Sure, it all boils down to allow either:
- an imaginary time and pure imaginary lengths inside the black hole, "beyond the event horizon" (as usually done)
- or consider that the interior of such a solution is physically (an mathematically) real.
PS : You're right this is unstable, and such solution represents a transient, very short, ephemeral bridge in time.
If the bridge goes into another brane, then I don't understand why people would be so much against M-theory and its multiverse of different branes and prefer this theory instead, since both seem to agree on bridges to other branes .
One could claim there was one "white hole" in our universe. We called it "The Big Bang". Note the correlation between the unstable bridge, and the short period of "inflation" at the start of "The Big Bang".
(Try not to laugh too hard. . . )
Don't forget the Dipole Repeller n GRB's
-
#1644 by meberbs on 16 Sep, 2017 06:42
-
Your arguments are about semantics of how I'm not writing what I mean in the same way you would write it. All I can say is this is a forum for discussion, not a peer reviewed paper. I've been discussing the PV Model with my peers for nearly 20 years, and they have no problem understanding me. The issue is, you like to nitpick instead of trying to understand. You obviously enjoy it!
When you change the meaning of a variable or word from one sentence to the next, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to understand you. Asking for clarification is not a nitpick, but necessary for understanding.I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.
I know that there was more recent work, but you pointed OnlyMe to an older paper than the one I cited and said that all tests of GR matched.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum
You're not up to date on the model!Anyway, the whole point of this conversation was simply that, in the frame of a distant observer outside the gravitational fields being observed,
Yes, because these are consistent statements now. There are other models out there where the laws of physics are not the same everywhere, because the usual "constants" vary with time. I don't think there is any experimental evidence for this, but especially when discussing the early universe, I am not sure it has been completely ruled out.
cK = c/K
GK = G/K4
Where, c and G are "constants". Happy?
-
#1645 by as58 on 16 Sep, 2017 07:04
-
I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum
I started reading your paper and got as far section 2.1 (so about one fourth of a page) before hitting the first hurdle. Equation (1) states that 1/K is a harmonic function. But why in 2.1 you only allow a family of linear functions as solutions? There are other harmonic functions... -
#1646 by Mezzenile on 16 Sep, 2017 07:24
-
And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.
I can agree with what you say, except for the Existence of black holes which is clearly wrong today !
To say « I believe in the existence of black hole » is the same as to say « I believe in the day of resurrection of the Dead » in religion : it may happen but after the end of time for all the observers we are.
General Relativity predicts that it would takes an infinite time for any external oberver to be informed that a particle has crossed the horizon surface of what is destined to become a black hole.
Even the Hawking discussion about the magic of black hole internal mass evaporation completely miss this point that all the matter making the mass of the black hole is still outside its horizon surface at the time Hawking predicts/observes its black body radiation.
Hawking already did a big mistake with his hostility to the support given by Denis Sciama (his former thesis advisor) to a machian origin of inertial mass. But with his presentation of what are black holes to the great public, he does what even religious people dont do : explain our today situation by what happen after the day of resurrection of the Dead !
Phenomenas attributed to astronomical structures called Black Holes exist certainly, but they can be attributed to a large amount of mass still outside a so called horizon surface. -
#1647 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2017 12:27
-
You may hold your own individual opinions on this and many other things, but regardless of your opinions, there is an objective reality out there: the existence of black holes is widely accepted by mainstream science, because cosmological observations accurately agrees with mathematical predictions. Furthermore, the first observation of gravitational waves, on 11 February 2016; is widely understood by mainstream science to be due to waves generated from the merger of binary black holes. The measurements are in excellent agreement with General Relativity's model for the waves that will originate from the merger of a binary black hole.And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.
I can agree with what you say, except for the Existence of black holes which is clearly wrong today !
To say « I believe in the existence of black hole » is the same as to say « I believe in the day of resurrection of the Dead » in religion : it may happen but after the end of time for all the observers we are.
...
Furthermore, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), (MIT's Haystack Observatory), detected magnetic fields just outside the event horizon of Sagittarius A (the black hole at the center of the Milky Way), and discerned some of the black hole properties. The magnetic fields were previously predicted by theoretical studies of black holes. The team found that magnetic fields in some regions near the black hole are disorderly, with jumbled loops and whorls resembling intertwined spaghetti. In contrast, other regions showed a much more organized pattern, possibly in the region where jets would be generated. They also found that the magnetic fields fluctuated on short time scales of only 15 minutes or so. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2015-28
Nowadays, and for several centuries now, scientific existence of something is not determined by what an individual person's senses may sense but by the scientific method. Mainstream science is in agreement that our planet is round and that it revolves around the Sun, regardless of what your senses may tell you.
As John Von Neumann wrote:QuoteThe sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
cosmological observations are in excellent agreement with mathematical predictions (including numerical relativity) of black holes as based on the theory of General Relativity, and these models (General Relativity) accurately predict the observations (for example of gravitational waves as being due to the merger of black holes).
For this to change it would be required that the present model (General Relativity) ceases to accurately describe the observed cosmological phenomena presently ascribed to black holes, and/or that a superior, more accurate as well as parsimonious model is found. -
#1648 by SeeShells on 16 Sep, 2017 13:01
-
For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.
Shell
-
#1649 by flux_capacitor on 16 Sep, 2017 13:24
-
You may hold your own individual opinions on this and many other things, but regardless of your opinion, the existence of black holes is widely accepted by mainstream science and at most universities. Furthermore, the first observation of gravitational waves, on 11 February 2016; is widely understood by mainstream science to be due to waves generated from the merger of binary black holes.And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.
I can agree with what you say, except for the Existence of black holes which is clearly wrong today !
To say « I believe in the existence of black hole » is the same as to say « I believe in the day of resurrection of the Dead » in religion : it may happen but after the end of time for all the observers we are.
...
There really should be a dedicated thread about black holes physics, not really related to EmDrive and spaceflight applications. But the scientific community may be wrong on black holes. Light black holes may be neutron stars. No more massive black hole has ever been detected, say above 2.5 solar masses, in the whole observed universe for 40 years. This is very suspicious. There is only one candidate for stellar black holes: Cygnus X-1, an X-ray binary located 6,000 lightyears away. The slightest error in reality vs the theoretical calculation in such an enormous distance and this system could become subcritical neutron stars again, as any others.
Similarly, the presence of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies is established as a "fact" by the scientific community, whereas no one ever observed its obvious effects. For example, the gas around Sgr A* at the center of the Milky way does not emit the enormous quantities of X-rays theoretically associated with the accretion disk around a giant black holes, as showed by the Chandra X-ray Observatory (only discrete events). Scientists resorted to complicated things such as the black hole being perhaps now "repleted" or expressing some kind of resonant Auger Destruction effect preventing the emission of X-rays (recently debunked by experiments conducted on the Z-machine at Sandia labs whose results also contradicts the established theroretical model used for 20 years to characterize black holes from their X-ray profile).
In 2013, a puff of gas passed near Sagittarius A* at the center of the Milky way, all telescopes were pointed at it, simulations were done in advance showing how the gas would be distorted, elongated, sucked by the giant black hole as it approached. But the gas passed near it and… nothing. It reappeared behind it, unchanged. So scientists resorted to a compact star and its accretion disc, instead of just interstellar gas.
The presence of supermassive black holes is deduced from the increasing star velocities near the galactic center. So there is indeed a massive object there. But is it a black hole? If you take some mass of ionized gas and fill a sphere whose radius is about the same as the asteroid belt orbit (radius ≈ 2.5 AU) with it, the gas having the average density of water (this is the average density inside the Sun for example) then we obtain the four million solar masses that are calculated and accounting for the star velocities around, with no need to resort to a giant black hole.
The black hole is indeed a belief among the scientific community. A largely shared, common belief. If you talk about possible alternative to this model, you are somewhat considered as much on the fringe side.
For example, the merger of two neutron stars into a critical object inverting its mass would produce the amount of gravitational waves detected at LIGO and interpreted classically as the merger of two black holes.
Karl Schwarzschild himself showed in his second 1916 paper, which almost nobody read in extenso for 83 years (only snippets of comments) as it was translated only in December 1999, that the speed of light and especially the pressure at the center of the neutron star grow to infinity, before the radius of the star merges with the Schwarzschild radius (for the case of a subcritical neutron star whose mass is gradually increased by the accretion of the stellar wind produced by its companion star). In other words, that a physical criticality is reached before the geometric criticality.
This model has later been taken over in 1939, based on Richard Tolman's work, by J. Robert Oppenheimer and George Volkoff, as the basis of the "TOV model" named after their initials. See the pressure evolution at the core of a neutron star approaching the geometric criticality (i.e. when its radius becomes the Schwarzschild radius) calculated after the TOV equation.
The physicist has to question himself about the appearance of a physical criticality, and its signification. But nobody does.
And this is general relativity, no need for another theory to point out those facts.
-
#1650 by Mulletron on 16 Sep, 2017 13:24
-
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/ -
#1651 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2017 13:26
-
...Hawking already did a big mistake with his hostility to the support given by Denis Sciama (his former thesis advisor) to a machian origin of inertial mass....
Listen to Sciama's later views on this subject: watch the conversation in 1986 between Abdus Salam (1979 Nobel Prize for electroweak unification), Dennis Sciama, Edward Witten (35 years old at the time, known for string theory and quantum gravity work at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton)and Paolo Budinich talking about physics.
Notice (towards the end of the conversation, starting at @44:00) in 1951 Sciama made a switch from Statistical Mechanics towards General Relativity, at a time that Cambridge had few people that taught General Relativity.At a time that Sciama said: none of the revolution of modern astrophysics had occurred at the time. Sciama came up with his Mach theory paper at a time when Sciama admits that practically nothing of what we know today about the cosmos (black holes, neutron stars, etc.) had been observed. When asked by Salam what was Sciama's Ph.D. thesis about, Sciama answers, rather reluctantly,"something to do with Mach's principle" "which Sciama says he had already worked out before Dirac was made his official thesis adviser, so Dirac did not have anything to do with it", he emphasizes that his "Mach principle" work had nothing to do with the torsion stuff that Salam knew Sciama for, either. Sciama refers to his graduate work as "before the modern era" of astrophysical observations. Sciama says that was after he had already formed his "Mach principle" graduate work that the revolution of observational astronomy, starting with radio astronomy in 1952,came about. Sciama remembers when neutron stars (not just black holes) at the time of his graduate work were considered to be "not respectable work."
We are in the year 2017. By now all measurements show that inertial mass is identical to gravitational mass. The experimental fact is that Gravity Probe B has verified Einstein's theory and there are no cosmological measurements that have revealed any Machian effect not already present in Einstein's theory.
The Universe has a structure, due to gravity and inertia: planetary systems, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters, which is explained by Einstein's theory of gravitation. The revolution in cosmological measurements, has fully confirmed Einstein's theory concerning the equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass: they are identical. -
#1652 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2017 13:34
-
...
The analytical work of Damour and Blanchet for the gravitational waves effects shows that if they would have been instead neutron stars the measurements would have been different. So, again, the measurements are in agreement with the gravitational waves originating from the merger of black holes, instead of from the merger of neutron stars. This has been confirmed by numerical relativity as well.
There really should be a dedicated thread about black holes physics, not really related to EmDrive and spaceflight applications. But the scientific community may be wrong on black holes. Light black holes may be neutron stars. No more massive black hole has ever been detected, say above 2.5 solar masses, in the whole observed universe for 40 years. This is very suspicious. There is only one candidate for stellar black holes: Cygnus X-1, an X-ray binary located 6,000 lightyears away. The slightest error in reality vs the theoretical calculation in such an enormous distance and this system could become subcritical neutron stars again, as any others. ...
As to the problem of being able to independently observe the location of the event measured in the gravitational waves, you are right that this problem remains, but present understanding is that it will be fulfilled within the next few years by using a number of measurements of gravitational waves around our planet. Several measurements at different locations are required to pinpoint the location of the source, and hence to independently identify the source. -
#1653 by flux_capacitor on 16 Sep, 2017 13:42
-
...
The analytical work of Damour and Blanchet for the gravitational waves effects shows that if they would have been instead neutron stars the measurements would have been different. So, again, the measurements are in agreement with the gravitational waves originating from the merger of black holes, instead of from the merger of neutron stars. This has been confirmed by numerical relativity as well.
There really should be a dedicated thread about black holes physics, not really related to EmDrive and spaceflight applications. But the scientific community may be wrong on black holes. Light black holes may be neutron stars. No more massive black hole has ever been detected, say above 2.5 solar masses, in the whole observed universe for 40 years. This is very suspicious. There is only one candidate for stellar black holes: Cygnus X-1, an X-ray binary located 6,000 lightyears away. The slightest error in reality vs the theoretical calculation in such an enormous distance and this system could become subcritical neutron stars again, as any others. ...
Your sentence is right, but the part of my post you quoted is wrong, as I specifically talked about LIGO at the bottom part of my post, where I didn't accounted for the effect of gravitational waves detected as being due to the merger of two neutron stars, but to the object resulting of the merger of two neutron stars reaching criticality and subsequently inverting its mass. The mass inversion process being in this case violent, and creating the amount of gravitational waves detected. This is an alternative possibility to the black hole model, taking into account the Schwarzschild, Tolman, Oppenheimer and Volkoff model about the infinite pressure reached at the center of the star. You're right that the merger of two neutron stars alone would not be enough.
The mass inversion seems a weird idea at first. But T-symmetry reverses the energy of a particle. The arrow of time and associated entropy can be reversed with two possibilities:
1- when entropy reaches a minimal value, as shown by Sakharov, Caroll, Guth, Barbour, etc.
2- when entropy reaches a maximal value, but ONLY if the speed of light varies in the process and also becomes infinite.
In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. Hawking agreed. This has been later shown by Barbour with simulations. For this reason, Sakharov advocated for a "cold model" of the Big Bang after this idea, since a cold initial singularity would enable his twin universe model in complete CPT-symmetry.
Sakharov meets Hawking in Moscow, 1987.
But Sakharov didn't take into account (neither did Hawking) the possibility that the speed of light could vary locally with very high pressure and energy density states of matter, for example at the Big Bang and right after during the radiation-dominated era of the univers, or similarly locally at the center of a neutron star reaching a physical criticality, when about to become a black hole (hint at RSE's joke, which is not anymore a joke according to this idea).
So in (2) with the addition of c reaching an infinite value, when one goes back into the past from t>0 down to the singularity, the light cone becomes flatter and flatter until it becomes a disc at t=0 (where time does not have a meaning anymore), flips inside out and the direction of the arrow of time is reversed at t<0. Consider the light cone as a Japanese umbrella blewing inside-out with a gust, the handle being the arrow of time. But you have to think of a handle becoming shorter and shorter when the cone of the umbrella becomes a disc, reaches a minimal value then pops out the umbrella on the other side when the cone has flipped over.
Time reversal would also occur with a speed of light becoming null by the way, as the angle at the apex of the light cone tends to zero and the cone becomes a straight line ultimately, the flow of time again becoming meaningless, frozen, at this very moment (umbrella completely closed onto its handle). Then the arrow fo time can bounce and flip the other way too. I imagine this at the end of times, when all matter has disappeared from the universe (due to the finite lifetime, although huge, of fermions) and the photon wavelengths stretched to infinity due to the infinite cosmic expansion; the flow of time, the universe itself, becoming frozen. Then the entropy, and the arrow of time, could reverse, and everything could start again. Phew…
-
#1654 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2017 13:46
-
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?
Hawking is not saying that there are no black holes, but is instead arguing about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox and the "war" with Susskind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/QuoteHawking et al. on 5 Jan 2016 proposed new theories of information moving in and out of a black hole. The 2016 work posits that the information is saved in "soft particles", low-energy versions of photons and other particles that exist in zero-energy empty space.
see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists/
-
#1655 by Mulletron on 16 Sep, 2017 14:28
-
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?
Hawking is not saying that there are no black holes, but is instead arguing about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox and the "war" with Susskind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/QuoteHawking et al. on 5 Jan 2016 proposed new theories of information moving in and out of a black hole. The 2016 work posits that the information is saved in "soft particles", low-energy versions of photons and other particles that exist in zero-energy empty space.
see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists/
I know, it says that right there in the article. It's a question of just how black are they. -
#1656 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2017 14:28
-
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting
Thanks for pointing this out.
-
#1657 by WarpTech on 16 Sep, 2017 16:04
-
I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum
I started reading your paper and got as far section 2.1 (so about one fourth of a page) before hitting the first hurdle. Equation (1) states that 1/K is a harmonic function. But why in 2.1 you only allow a family of linear functions as solutions? There are other harmonic functions...
At the time, (2002 - 2006) Ricc Storti and I were working on a harmonic representation, where K could be engineered or synthesized by a superposition of EM waves over a very wide frequency band, bombarding a test object. What we discovered through MathCAD analysis, mostly by Ricc, was that the majority of the energy had to be at EM frequencies > 1022Hz, and I showed him it would take GW of power in order to engineer any practical gravitational effects, so anything we could build in the lab was futile. That's where it was left off.
As far as I'm concerned now, ANY metric coefficients you can come up with using GR; i.e., solutions of Einstein's equations, has an analog Refractive index matrix (metric) in the sense of the PV Model. I treat the PV Model as nothing more than an alternative interpretation of GR, not a different theory. Any test of GR is also a test of the PV interpretation, but there is no test that can distinguish between them... (yet).
-
#1658 by Augmentor on 16 Sep, 2017 16:20
-
Sorry folks. I'm not seeing the EM drive in all this loose, just a hijacked topic.
-
#1659 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2017 16:39
-
Sorry folks. I'm not seeing the EM drive in all this loose, just a hijacked topic.
Which can be easily addressed by you (or someone else) posting something on EM Drive - related to space flight applications. Posting is the best way to bring the thread back on focus
The above discussions are peripherally related to the subject as follows: there have been posts conjecturing whether the EM Drive can be explained by gravitational waves, or by General Relativity or by super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
Many people are still wondering: how can something like the EM Drive accelerate the center of mass?
The thread naturally gyrated to some fundamental issues, because these fundamental issues are not resolved -as excellently documented by flux_capacitor-
Thanks for pointing this out.