-
#220 by SeeShells on 10 Jun, 2017 21:02
-
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.
All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on.
Shell -
#221 by dustinthewind on 10 Jun, 2017 23:34
-
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again. The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive.
"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"
It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses. Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse. A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much. This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed.
The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container. One box can swing the other is stationary.
Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum.
The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png" The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text.
The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down. After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum. The green line is the applied force (small force). The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach. Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive.
The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude. Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement.
The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values. If I am correct it can be simplified toc=1/(2*w)sorry this would be incorrect
The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);.
The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside. Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like.
It's been a while since I looked back at this.
I thought I would add this in as a way of detecting small deflections in angle. See attached graphic file.
Edited graphic to display correct equation for change in angle. Sorry for multiple changes. Should be correct now.
using 30 reflections and the equation for dh and dl or change in position of the pendulum we can get an amplification factor dh/dl pluging this in to wXmaxima :
t1: atan(z/(n*2*L));
dl: 0.000001;
L: 1;
z: 1;
n:30;
"dh/dl"=L*(tan(t1)+2*tan(t1+2*atan(dl/z))+2*tan(t1+3*atan(dl/z))+... ...+tan(t1+31*atan(dl/z))-z)/dl;
"dh/dl"=959.267
959.267*0.000001 = 9.59267*10^-4 change in height or about 1mm if using SI units
50 cycles gives a sensitivity of about 0.000001m*2600 dl/dh = 0.00259m~2.6mm
It may be better to use an interferometer which has a little better sensitivity depending on the wavelength of the light. The dual mirror might come close to visible light if I increase the number of reflections.
There is also an interferometer that uses multiple reflections to increase its sensitivity orders of magnitude which might be worth while.
Increasing the Sensitivity of the Michelson Interferometer through Multiple Reflection
W Youn - 2015
-
#222 by Star-Drive on 11 Jun, 2017 04:24
-
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.
All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on.
Shell
Shell:
The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing. That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests. The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide. However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.
BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits. Thus I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.
Best, Paul M.
-
#223 by RERT on 11 Jun, 2017 13:12
-
Paul - any chance of posting a data file so that we can take a closer look at that test? I can see now why there is scepticism, but you explanation seems good. A closer look could confirm the picture you paint. Just angular position and time is all that's needed.
-
#224 by Star One on 11 Jun, 2017 13:56
-
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.
All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on.
Shell
Shell:
The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing. That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests. The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide. However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.
BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits. Thus I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.
Best, Paul M.
For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive? -
#225 by Rodal on 11 Jun, 2017 15:06
-
...For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Dr. White is giving a 40 minute presentation on the EM Drive and White's QV pilot wave theory, and chairing a Breakthrough Propulsion session next week in New York's workshop:
http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/physicsworkshop/
Foundations of Interstellar Studies
Workshop at City Tech, CUNY
June 13-15, 2017, New York, NY USA
Day 3: Breakthrough Propulsion, June 15, 2017
Time Topic Speaker Organization
08.40 Welcome by Session Chairman: Harold White
08.50 1. Pilot Wave Model for Impulsive Thrust from RF Test Device Measured in Vacuum Harold G. White NASA JSC Eagleworks
09.30 2. Mach Effect Gravitational Assist Drive Heidi Fearn et al. California State University Fullerton
10.10 3. Entanglement and Chameleon Acceleration Glen A. Robertson GAResearch LLC -
#226 by Star-Drive on 11 Jun, 2017 15:28
-
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.
All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on.
Shell
Shell:
The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing. That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests. The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide. However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.
BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits. Thus I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.
Best, Paul M.
For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Star-One:
I have no direct insights into what Dr. White is or is not doing since we have not talked since my departure from the Eagleworks Lab back in September 2016. However Dr. Rodal is correct in that Dr. White is supposed to be presenting a paper at the New York Interstellar Conference next week that is supposed to be a paper on his evolving Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture based on de Broglie's pilot-wave approach to Quantum Mechanics (QM), see Dr. Rodal's latest post. However I've not heard or seen any mention of the EW summer of 2016 Cavendish Balance experiment in any publications to date. Has anybody else seen or heard of such a CB paper from the EW lab since I left it?
Best, Paul M. -
#227 by Star One on 11 Jun, 2017 15:31
-
Thanks both of you for the clarification on the matter.
-
#228 by Star-Drive on 11 Jun, 2017 15:35
-
Paul - any chance of posting a data file so that we can take a closer look at that test? I can see now why there is skepticism, but you explanation seems good. A closer look could confirm the picture you paint. Just angular position and time is all that's needed.
RERT:
Wish I could, but Dr. White is the holder of all the analytical/numerical data that was acquired by the 2016 Cavendish Balance (CB) test series, so your request for such should go to him directly at the NASA/JSC EW lab.
Best, Paul M. -
#229 by Peter Lauwer on 11 Jun, 2017 19:57
-
Since we're at it; what about the attenuator you were planning to add ? Did you discard the idea or was it just moved to the "to do in a rainy day" box
?
I'm using a 5W attenuator now since the RF output is 2.5W. When I add the 30W amp, I will need a bigger attenuator. This is the current as-built wiring diagram.
I have bought myself a decent pre-amp (the Minicircuits ZX60-H242+) to drive the wifi amp (EDUP etc), Jamie. When measuring with the Zx47-40 detector (Minicircuits), I get an output power of 3.15 W (35 dBm) at 2.45 GHz.
The spectrum analyzer gives 2 dBm lower, though. I have to look into this discrepancy (attached screenshot of the measurement is with 10 dB attenuator between the EDUP and the SA).
If this amp really gives more than 3 W, it is not bad at all.
Cheers, Peter
-
#230 by Peter Lauwer on 11 Jun, 2017 20:11
-
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work. Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show. If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".
Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...
It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....
It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list too.
We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...
Marc Millis also warns for problems with air bearings in measurements in his book 'Frontiers of Propulsion Science (2009, co-edited with E.W. Davis), p. 254.
-
#231 by SeeShells on 11 Jun, 2017 20:32
-
Paul,
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.
All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on.
Shell
Shell:
The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing. That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests. The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide. However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.
BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits. Thus I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.
Best, Paul M.
I for one and think I speak for others here as well, deeply thank you for your dedication, your perseverance and your honesty. You're a rare man indeed.
Thank you for forwarding your lab results on the error on the air bearing, it makes much more sense now you did see 18-20 uN of thrust.
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#232 by otlski on 11 Jun, 2017 23:46
-
Marc Millis also warns for problems with air bearings in measurements in his book 'Frontiers of Propulsion Science (2009, co-edited with E.W. Davis), p. 254.
To clarify, the mode demonstrated by Millis is very likely in certain configurations of linear air bearing especially those acting like air hockey tables which have high flow at low pressure, yielding very poor stiffness. Rotary air bearings, especially low flow high pressure professionally made ones, will not exhibit this error mode.
Dan -
#233 by M.LeBel on 12 Jun, 2017 00:23
-
Hi Shell,Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature. In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
Very interesting Dr. Rodal. You're way beyond my pay grade, although I think I can see what you're trying to convey. If a drive is done right and you're inciting a gravitational 4D effect (like the Mach effect) you will not have the issue of over unity and violate conservation laws.
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself.
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change. The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself. And these wave can interact nonlinearly.
All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
My Best,
Shell
Yes, but we need further theoretical and experimental work.
Notsosureofit was working on it, a lot of this is tied with entropy.
The curvature of space can also be measured with entropy measures
(K.-T. Sturm, On the geometry of metric measure spaces, Acta Math. 196 (2006), n 1, 65–177. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891805
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891806 )
The idea is that, in positive Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a sphere), “midpoints spread out”: if we take two geometrical measures in the curved 4 D spacetime surface, and consider the set of points that lie “halfway” between the two sets then the set of midpoints is wider than expected from the Euclidean (flat) case. (For example, on a sphere, the set of midpoints of the two poles will be the whole equator.)
The reverse is true for negative Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a saddle).
In the entropy approach one uses probability measures instead of geometrical measures in the 4 D spacetime surface. The extent to which they are spread can be evaluated using the relative entropy (the Kullback–Leibler divergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullback%E2%80%93Leibler_divergence ).
I wonder whether Notsosureofit did any further work?
This somehow comes down to showing that gravity is an entropic event. After all, both gravity and entropy are spontaneous processes.
So, when an object falls toward the ground, it spontaneously moves toward where the rate of time is slower, which means relatively longer seconds. If the speed of light (m/s) is to remain constant, longer seconds “s” requires longer space “m”. In other words, the object is actually falling into larger space which is “dispersion”, the hallmark of entropy. Yes, gravity is an entropic process.
Both gravity and entropy share the same type of cause, a differential in the rate of “time-process” which translates as a differential in existence, i.e. motion for us. A different perspective we should all consider.
Marcel, -
#234 by M.LeBel on 12 Jun, 2017 00:46
-
Thankyou mh,All:
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.
I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.
Best, Paul M.
As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.
Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.
mh
bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.
The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.
Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly
Spupeng7
Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)
Marcel,
-
#235 by Rodal on 12 Jun, 2017 01:28
-
Thankyou mh,All:
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.
I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.
Best, Paul M.
As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.
Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.
mh
bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.
The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.
Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly
Spupeng7
Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)
Marcel,
<<This is strange. Most people find it very difficult even to imagine how such a statement
could be true. The two concepts, time and gravity, are so different that there would seem to
be no way that they could possibly have anything to do with each other, never mind being
identical. That gravity could affect time, or rather could affect the rate at which clocks run,
is acceptable, but that gravity is in any sense the same as time seems naively unimaginable.
To give a hint about how General Relativity accomplishes this identification, I will use an
analogy. As with any analogy, there will be certain features that will carry the message that
I want to convey, and I will emphasize these. There are other features of the analogy which
may be misleading, and I will point out a few of these. The temptation with any analogy
is to try to extend it, to think about the subject (in this case time and gravity) by means
of the analogy and to ascribe to the theory (General Relativity) all aspects of the analogy,
when in fact only some of the aspects are valid.>> W. Unruh
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312027.pdf -
#236 by Notsosureofit on 12 Jun, 2017 02:05
-
Still working on entropy.....looking for a simple enough model to prove the EM Drive a result of entropic force of zero or non-zero magnitude.
-
#237 by M.LeBel on 12 Jun, 2017 14:14
-
Thankyou mh,All:
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.
I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.
Best, Paul M.
As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.
Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.
mh
bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.
The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.
Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly
Spupeng7
Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)
Marcel,
<<This is strange. Most people find it very difficult even to imagine how such a statement
could be true. The two concepts, time and gravity, are so different that there would seem to
be no way that they could possibly have anything to do with each other, never mind being
identical. That gravity could affect time, or rather could affect the rate at which clocks run,
is acceptable, but that gravity is in any sense the same as time seems naively unimaginable.
To give a hint about how General Relativity accomplishes this identification, I will use an
analogy. As with any analogy, there will be certain features that will carry the message that
I want to convey, and I will emphasize these. There are other features of the analogy which
may be misleading, and I will point out a few of these. The temptation with any analogy
is to try to extend it, to think about the subject (in this case time and gravity) by means
of the analogy and to ascribe to the theory (General Relativity) all aspects of the analogy,
when in fact only some of the aspects are valid.>> W. Unruh
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312027.pdf
Rodal,
Thank you for the Unruh reference. Of course, the (his) analogy comes after your blue bold highlight and is not shown here.
. The analogy he is offering is to help those who have problem grasping the fact that time and gravity are the same.
EDIT: Actually, Unruh says something true and simple about the the universe and then build/uses a rather complex analogy to explain it!?
I say that things have a higher probability to exist or be where the rate of time is relatively slower because they can stay there longer. This perspective consists in changing "motion", which is an observation related to us, by "existence", which is only due to the "thing" itself. This way, we may understand why the universe works the way it does without us in the picture.
Marcel, -
#238 by spupeng7 on 13 Jun, 2017 02:27
-
Thankyou mh,All:
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.
I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.
Best, Paul M.
As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.
Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.
mh
bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.
The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.
Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly
Spupeng7
Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)
Marcel,
Thankyou M,
I can visualize GR no other way. Bill Unruh is correct in this IMO. The extension of a location in spacetime which allows resonance between or energy transfer between remote charges, exists across this unequable (unequal rate of) flow.
The argument that gravity is entropic does not appeal to me. The concentration of matter consequent upon gravity would surely decrease the 'entropy'. Truth is I can find no use for entropy unless you are improving the efficiency of a steam engine.
Corrected spelling
-
#239 by M.LeBel on 13 Jun, 2017 03:11
-
Thankyou mh,All:
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.
I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.
Best, Paul M.
As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.
Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.
mh
bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.
The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.
Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly
Spupeng7
Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)
Marcel,
Thankyou M,
I can visualize GR no other way. Bill Unruh is correct in this IMO. The extension of a location in spacetime which allows resonance between or energy transfer between remote charges, exists across this unequable (unequal rate of) flow.
The argument that gravity is entropic dose not appeal to me. The concentration of matter consequent upon gravity would surely decrease the 'entropy'. Truth is I can find no use for entropy unless you are improving the efficiency of a steam engine.
Spupeng7,
The "gravity is entropic" argument was offered only as an example to show that the type of cause is universal and unique. As such, entropy is only our "rocket way" to deal with gravity. We can do better with EM waves in producing a differential in the rate of the time-process.
Unruh's "lesson" is in fact a partial metaphysical rendering of GR. He doesn't say why this unequable flow of time from place to place makes things to exist more (move) toward slower time. On the other hand, he reifies or makes real "time" as something already existing here and there waiting for us to measure it, i.e. he makes it a substance!
In order to abide by truth, your discourse must sit entirely either in physics or metaphysics and don't be intimidated by those who see it as still a matter of fairies and unicorns. Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers (Einstein)
Marcel,
?