-
#1740 by Propylox on 20 Sep, 2017 08:50
-
- what you posted ... is just nonsensical:
I'm struggling to understand what you don't about my comment and thus declared as nonsensical.
Emissions from what magnetic pole? ... Depending on the antenna type, the antenna might be roughly a magnetic dipole, but even then your sentence doesn't make sense because the only thing emitted from the antenna is the electromagnetic fields...
This is basic stuff, known as the electromagnetic field, divergence and the thermionic effect.Quote- Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past.
This begins to make sense; that quantum entanglement and instantaneous force, as well as the nature of time's dimension and energy's ability to transit between the single dimension of time and three of our universe are concepts you're unaware of, clearly defiant to acknowledging and will require explaining.
- Photons are pure energy. They have 0 rest mass
- Particle/wave duality doesn't have anything to do with "energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it" mostly because that doesn't mean anything. "Confined to time" does not have any meaning.Quote- Einstein showed that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, and he did not propose any kind of "mass carrier" for them. We still don't know if there is a graviton particle associated with these or not.
Don't you consider it a contradiction to call distortions in spacetime as "gravity waves" while referencing Einstein who said gravity isn't a force, but observation? Isn't it also contradictory for you to admit gravitons and the nature of gravity are debatable, but declare gravity's effect and velocity on spacetime and certain? I do and would gladly correct your confusion of the subject. -
#1741 by TheTraveller on 20 Sep, 2017 09:38
-
Someone finally translated Dr Chen Yue's recent interview on CCTV in English. Not perfect but much better than Google's automatic
gibberishtranslation.
You will not discover much, other than the fact CAST seems at the vey beginning of this research and they do not even know if it could work. To me, this is an attempt to make a propellantless RF resonant cavity thruster, but is has little to do with Shawyer's EmDrive, which is a very high-Q frustum resonant cavity with spherically shaped end plates, whereas this one is a flat cylinder with some slits and diaphragms at the bottom interior part.
flux_capacitor,
the advantages of this design are; simplicity of design and production, low mass and reduced overall volume and stackability and it may yet be found to have other advantages as a resonator, hopefully a high Q.
Either way it clearly is an emdrive, which is Shawyer's invention.
Both CAST and Roger has reported they, CAST, started EmDrive research in 2010. Roger also reported an independent Beijing Chinese lab, CAST?, did replicated Prof Yang's results.
Of course to deniers, this means nothing as they believe there us no way the EmDrive works and ALL experimental data is either bad setup, bad measurement or intentional reporting of bad data. -
#1742 by Propylox on 20 Sep, 2017 09:40
-
A differential in the rate of time is gravity (quote from Unruh, posted n times already).
A lot of interesting comments, LeBel, but it may be incorrect gravity, whether a force or observation, is an outcome of time's variation. It depends on the nature and limits of space's distortion (note: I separated time) and if gravity exists. Here's a handful of options;
1) Time and space are the same, placing the same bounds on space's distortion as time. In the absence of matter, space will expand and time will advance at a constant and will slow to near zero in presence of abundant mass. This definition prevents space from contracting, only limiting its expansion, and thus gravity must be an actual force - One locked to the local rate of spacetime, defined by mass's presence. note: it'd also mean our universe isn't cyclical, but a one-off.
2) Time and space are aspects of one system called spacetime. But while time expands at a rate from near zero to one, space can expand or contract at rates between one and -one. Both time and space's distortion is again dependent on mass and again returns to "one" in mass's absence. It can thus be stated gravity is only an observation of spacetime's distortion due to mass.
3) Time is a dimension and space an unrelated, decreasing field. Again, time and space are retarded by mass, but space would not return to expansion in mass's absence. The rate of space's expansion decreases with time, but appears otherwise (aka: dark energy) due to the geometry of the universe. Gravity is again an observation of space's contraction due to mass while time is separately, but similarly effected - thus there is no relation between time and gravity other than appearance. -
#1743 by TheTraveller on 20 Sep, 2017 11:32
-
Guys,
I've decided to move forward with a replication of my original flat end plate S band thruster design as it was public knowledge before my contract work.
Now doing videos of every stage of builing this thruster. Will be using Yonlit 25W rf amp and USB freq gen with USB 2 channel scope for monitoring fwd/rev power as low cost quasi VNA to observe resonance and best freq vs lowest reflected power.
Output will be on a simple rotary test rig that will rotate cw and ccw as thruster position is reversed.
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated, plus show short bursts of acceleration, from pulsed Rf, with short rest frames between acceleration frames can achieve constant acceleration with very little KE gain reduction in EmDrive force generation.
As I suggest happens in MEGA drive and needs no new physics.
Phil -
#1744 by Rodal on 20 Sep, 2017 11:47
-
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,
Rodal,
the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
I ask you for experimental proof
and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?
And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?
----
And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?
Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
-
#1745 by RERT on 20 Sep, 2017 12:05
-
Monomorphic -
Eyeballing your calibration charts above, it looks like you've set the LDS to be both horizontal displacement at opposite ends of the beam, as discussed earlier. Any chance you could post the excel files the charts come from so that I can have a look?
Can you give us the horizontal distances from the pivot to Lds01 and LDS02? -
#1746 by Monomorphic on 20 Sep, 2017 13:13
-
Eyeballing your calibration charts above, it looks like you've set the LDS to be both horizontal displacement at opposite ends of the beam, as discussed earlier. Any chance you could post the excel files the charts come from so that I can have a look?
Can you give us the horizontal distances from the pivot to Lds01 and LDS02?
Sure, those files are attached. The mounted radius of the laser displacement sensors is (434mm).
EDIT: Just measured the LDS radius again since the changes. It is easier to measure since there are two. I think this number is more accurate.
-
#1747 by Mr. Peter on 20 Sep, 2017 15:00
-
Recommended Practice for Thrust Measurement in Electric Propulsion Testing
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B35564
http://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/Journal_Articles/JPP%20V33%20No3%20MayJune2017_ThrustMeasurement.pdf
Comprehensive and very useful paper on the subject. -
#1748 by meberbs on 20 Sep, 2017 15:10
-
I asked specific questions, such as where you physically propose that the magnetic pole is, and whether you meant monopole as your wording implied, or if you meant something that actually exists such as dipole.- what you posted ... is just nonsensical:
I'm struggling to understand what you don't about my comment and thus declared as nonsensical.
Emissions from what magnetic pole? ... Depending on the antenna type, the antenna might be roughly a magnetic dipole, but even then your sentence doesn't make sense because the only thing emitted from the antenna is the electromagnetic fields...
This is basic stuff, known as the electromagnetic field, divergence and the thermionic effect.
Instead of answering my specific questions, you respond by bringing up an effect that only occurs at temperatures hundreds of degrees higher than any emDrive experiment reaches, because experimenters try to mitigate thermal effects.
The only conclusions I can take from this are that you are either trolling or have no idea what you are talking about.
If the first, then stop wasting everyone's time. If the second, could you please explain why you think you understand these things when you couldn't even be bothered to spend a minute to look up at what temperature the thermal effect you are discussing even becomes significant?
You are the one who seems to be unaware of the actual meaning of any of the words you just used. I provided an explanation, while your response contains no explanation, or even an acknowledgement of what I said, so clearly you are the one that "clearly defiant to acknowledging" applies to.Quote- Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past.
This begins to make sense; that quantum entanglement and instantaneous force, as well as the nature of time's dimension and energy's ability to transit between the single dimension of time and three of our universe are concepts you're unaware of, clearly defiant to acknowledging and will require explaining.
- Photons are pure energy. They have 0 rest mass
- Particle/wave duality doesn't have anything to do with "energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it" mostly because that doesn't mean anything. "Confined to time" does not have any meaning.
Even if Einstein said that, it wouldn't contradict my first sentence. I can't find any such quote, and his description of gravity doesn't call gravity an "observation," but calls it curvature of spacetime which supports my statement. Also your use of "gravity waves" is wrong. That term is used for waves such as those found in the ocean. While understandable, it is not common for anyone who is familiar with GR to use that term when referring to gravitational waves.Quote- Einstein showed that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, and he did not propose any kind of "mass carrier" for them. We still don't know if there is a graviton particle associated with these or not.
Don't you consider it a contradiction to call distortions in spacetime as "gravity waves" while referencing Einstein who said gravity isn't a force, but observation?Isn't it also contradictory for you to admit gravitons and the nature of gravity are debatable, but declare gravity's effect and velocity on spacetime and certain? I do and would gladly correct your confusion of the subject.
Well, you didn't do any explanations here, and if you actually were familiar with the field at all, or even reading other posts in this thread (such as Rodal referencing gravity probe B) you would know that the predictions of general relativity have been measured quite accurately, so the certainty comes from experimental results. Any differences in the behavior of gravity based on whether or not gravitons exist are well beyond our current experimental capability, and either way, your original claim of instantaneous gravity simply contradicts experimental evidence.
Edit: Somehow failed to type the second half of one sentence. -
#1749 by meberbs on 20 Sep, 2017 15:16
-
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust. -
#1750 by PotomacNeuron on 20 Sep, 2017 15:28
-
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.
His move should be encouraged. -
#1751 by meberbs on 20 Sep, 2017 15:36
-
Yes, if he is actually going to do an experiment and provide evidence this time, it would be great, but saying the experiment will demonstrate something that it cannot demonstrate if it works is not a good start. I am asking how he intends to demonstrate conservation of momentum so that any associated flaws in the experiment can be worked out early.This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.
His move should be encouraged. -
#1752 by Mulletron on 20 Sep, 2017 16:01
-
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,
Rodal,
the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
I ask you for experimental proof
and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?
And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?
----
And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?
Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
Rodal I have a lot of respect for you remaining objective about Mach effects despite your collaboration with the Woodward team. -
#1753 by OnlyMe on 20 Sep, 2017 17:00
-
Yes, if he is actually going to do an experiment and provide evidence this time, it would be great, but saying the experiment will demonstrate something that it cannot demonstrate if it works is not a good start. I am asking how he intends to demonstrate conservation of momentum so that any associated flaws in the experiment can be worked out early.This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.
His move should be encouraged.
I think that TT believes that CoM and CoE are fundamental to physics and thus, any demonstration of a working EmDrive is a de facto demonstration that it does not violate either CoM or CoE.
Just a few posts back he admitted that he did not know that Shawyer's theory of operation is an accurate description of why it works only a model that predicts design limits, when he posted,…
Do I know why the EmDrive does what it does? No. However using SPR theory to drive design does seem to work.
Basically it sounds like he is now saying that if he demonstrates that it does work, he is also proving that it does not violate CoM... because CoM cannot be violated.
But you are correct, he will not have proven that there is not some new physics involved, that in the least requires that we reexamine our fundamental understanding of CoM. -
#1754 by Bob012345 on 20 Sep, 2017 17:35
-
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,
Rodal,
the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
I ask you for experimental proof
and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?
And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?
----
And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?
Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
It's too easy to "mock" Mach
for not recognizing the existence of atoms. It really was a deep scientific controversy at the time. Einstein played a role in making it clear in his thesis.
-
#1755 by Bob012345 on 20 Sep, 2017 17:45
-
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.
Which is really the bigger problem for you, that TT thinks momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently, or if a proven force exists without an exhaust showing momentum isn't conserved (at least locally)? Personally, I didn't mind Woodward's old position. Either way would lead to energy devices with greater output than input. -
#1756 by Rodal on 20 Sep, 2017 18:01
-
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.
Which is really the bigger problem for you, that TT thinks momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently, or if a proven force exists without an exhaust showing momentum isn't conserved (at least locally)? Personally, I didn't mind Woodward's old position. Either way would lead to energy devices with greater output than input.
Please cite a source for your unsourced claim thatQuotemomentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently
The paper I read from him in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society was actually arguing against White's QV theory for the EM Drive.
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2016.69.331
Are you suggesting that he previously stated that a working EM Drive would conserve momentum and now he states that a working EM Drive would not conserve momentum? I would bet instead that previously, and presently he would maintain that conservation of momentum has to be satisfied by every phenomenon as one of the most important laws of nature.
-
#1757 by Bob012345 on 20 Sep, 2017 18:10
-
A lot of your posts are about you seeing mocking where there is no mocking....
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,
Rodal,
the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
I ask you for experimental proof
and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?
And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?
----
And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?
Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
It's too easy to "mock" Mach for not recognizing the existence of atoms. It really was a deep scientific controversy at the time. Einstein played a role in making it clear in his thesis.
The post you are commenting on readsQuoteAnd you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?
Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?
How does it make sense that the same Mach that was never able to accept the existence of atoms would have a principle that would involve quantum mechanics somehow?
There is nothing about quantum mechanics in Mach's principle. It is about stars, billions of light years away, being responsible for inertia.
Sorry if that offended you but did you notice the quotes and the emoji which both indicated it was intended as a pun, not an accusation.
-
#1758 by Bob Woods on 20 Sep, 2017 18:14
-
A reminder about the NASA sponsored NIAC Symposium that starts Monday morning at 8:30 am Denver time.
IT will be live streamed at www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017
Agenda: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_2017_symposium_agenda_dener.pdf[
Wednesday morning: 11:10 Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute, Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission -
#1759 by tchernik on 20 Sep, 2017 18:32
-
Hi. I think we should keep Mach Effect related discussions on their own thread, until there is enough evidence that Emdrive exists and that it could be explained as a extended GR/Mach effect phenomenon.
Mods have been patient with us so far, but let's not over-stress that good disposition.
for not recognizing the existence of atoms. It really was a deep scientific controversy at the time. Einstein played a role in making it clear in his thesis.
