-
#3120 by SteveD on 01 Apr, 2018 17:39
-
Shell. Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this? Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?
-
#3121 by flux_capacitor on 01 Apr, 2018 18:10
-
Shell. Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this? Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
As I don't think Shell talks about the Hall effect in solids (need confirmation for that though) but deals with the Hall effect in ionized gases (as in a Hall thruster) this gives rise to the question about the purpose of a Hall effect "ion drive" within a closed container.
Shell, if the EmDrive really has charged particles within the cavity (ionization of the air; or free electrons or even Cu2+ (?) stripped away from the walls by microwaves) how do you plan to create any propulsive force, if these particles are accelerating indeed but eventually cannot escape the cavity? (always the same story of two astronauts playing squash in a spacecraft: the ship won't move) -
#3122 by SeeShells on 01 Apr, 2018 18:19
-
Shell. Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this? Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?
Hi Steve,
I became a believer that there isn't a truly "closed system" and it's all connected i.e. Mach Effects and even in the case of the "HyperMach Parametric Drive" where I have B-Field coils around the Drive enclosure. (On newer models I've incorporated them internally).
Look at it this way. Even if Woodward and his team wrapped his MEGA drive in an sealed airtight, fully EM shielded structure you would still observe Mach Effects. It's all connected, the EMDrive is no different. It can't be if you observe thrust.
Even the oscillating magnetic fields from a simple EMDrive will penetrate the copper or Aluminum walls to some degree due to actions of the internal fields to the walls.
The actions of the B-Fields to the RF mode structures and PZT stacks embedded into the polymer insert cannot limited to an internal closed action within the cavity.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#3123 by SeeShells on 01 Apr, 2018 18:31
-
Shell. Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this? Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
As I don't think Shell talks about the Hall effect in solids (need confirmation for that though) but deals with the Hall effect in ionized gases (as in a Hall thruster) this gives rise to the question about the purpose of a Hall effect "ion drive" within a closed container.
Shell, if the EmDrive really has charged particles within the cavity (ionization of the air; or free electrons or even Cu2+ (?) stripped away from the walls by microwaves) how do you plan to create any propulsive force, if these particles are accelerating indeed but eventually cannot escape the cavity? (always the same story of two astronauts playing squash in a spacecraft: the ship won't move)QuoteI concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.
This cannot be a closed system and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#3124 by flux_capacitor on 01 Apr, 2018 18:56
-
Quote
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.
This cannot be a closed system and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.
My Very Best,
Shell
This makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).
If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop). -
#3125 by SeeShells on 01 Apr, 2018 19:58
-
Quote
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.
This cannot be a closed system and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.
My Very Best,
Shell
This makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).
If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).QuoteActually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).
Yes, Montillet's paper along with Dr. Rodal's input have produced what I could see happening visually and I will add it is a head spinning ride through some wonderful math. Still not sure he has it spot on although it a great start.
I date myself here...
I once argued about (60 and 70's) the validity of electron holes meaning anything in conductors but as the years have passed nothing is something isn't it?
There has been a lot of talk about virtual particles meaning anything more than necessary fodder for filling out the other sides of equations. I believe they are real and the effects can be observed, but maybe adding the name particle to the virtual confuses many as to what they really are. I like virtual ripple.
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#3126 by Augmentor on 02 Apr, 2018 03:10
-
Quote
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.
This cannot be a closed system and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.
My Very Best,
Shell
This makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).
If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).QuoteActually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).
Yes, Montillet's paper along with Dr. Rodal's input have produced what I could see happening visually and I will add it is a head spinning ride through some wonderful math. Still not sure he has it spot on although it a great start.
I date myself here...
I once argued about (60 and 70's) the validity of electron holes meaning anything in conductors but as the years have passed nothing is something isn't it?
There has been a lot of talk about virtual particles meaning anything more than necessary fodder for filling out the other sides of equations. I believe they are real and the effects can be observed, but maybe adding the name particle to the virtual confuses many as to what they really are. I like virtual ripple.
My Very Best,
Shell
Depends on the equation since particle equations don't make good wave equations usually. Also, there are quasiparticles - Majorna and Weyl particles for example.
One has a smorgasbord of options beyond just pair creation
electron-hole (electronics)
electron-positron destruction (antimatter)
electron-positron creation (pair creation)
electron-proton (charge conservation)
electron-quarks (charge is conserved; ok so that is three particles)
electron-quasiparticle (see quantum field theory)
Dirac electron-Weyl electron (mass vs massless electron)
Total angular momentum plays a role - not just spin aka spintronics.
As to holes in general, just because we cannot "see it" visually or with instrumentation does not mean something isn't there. Witness Aharonov-Bohm. remove all external E and M fields, and viola, there is a residual E field. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Keep looking closer. Be sensitive to emergent properties. Some pieces are not just parts but field generators and particle sources.
D
-
#3127 by Bob Woods on 03 Apr, 2018 23:15
-
September 25-27 | 2018 NIAC Symposium, Boston, MA - Location Not Specified
September 22 | NIAC Inventive Genius Lecture: From Science Fiction to Science Fact, Boston Museum of Science -
#3128 by fvlad on 04 Apr, 2018 06:49
-
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
This is called a conspiracy theory. It is not welcome here, as it is basically an insult to all scientists on the planet. Try using actual facts instead of whatever things you made up because you can't accept that your claims are wrong.
Dear meberbs and All,
I apologize for hard statements.
Such hard statements are due to the inadequate actions of some leaders of experimental programs who, follow to generally accepted doctrine, sometimes openly falsify results. It is necessary publicly to debate of the results of real experiments.
For example, everyone knows the longest (31 years) and ambitious program to confirm the provisions of GR Gravity Probe B (GP-B).
Here are the feedback on the results of this project.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alternative-theories-being-tested-by-gravity-probe-b.104694/page-18
«Oct 2, 2010 #349 Polestar101 User Avatar
Wish I shared your faith in the GP-B results. With so much unexpected noise (all of which needed to be properly accounted for and canceled out to have any chance of getting meaningful results) GP-B became more of an engineering project than a science experiment. Fortunately an objective panel of 15 scientists at NASA recognized the difference, pulled the funding and stated the truth; GP-B “failed to reach its goals”. While subsequent attempts to engineer a solution were and are commendable they are highly suspect. Any methodology that relies on canceling out unanticipated “noise” by categorizing such unwanted effects as impossible to predict polhode motion (or anything else that is inherently unpredictable) negates the validity of the original science experiment. Good science relies on making and meeting predictions. Getting close to those predictions by “engineering” a preferred result is hardly science».
«A methodology that is so intent on proving GR, that it effectively endorses a static solar system model, and eliminates noise without specifically identifying the source of all such unwanted noise, is not very objective in my opinion. Like you I have no problem with the existence of GR. It is the integrity of the process, one that may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater (proving solar system motion), and lost the support of NASA and many objective scientists along the way, that is so troublesome».
I believe that by such actions the leadership of the GP-B clearly demonstrated how to "prove" the foundations of GR, and many honest physicists were insulted.
After such an assessment of the results of the mission, no self-respecting scientist can use the results of the gravity program GP-B as an argument. It's good that at least the results of the LAGEOS program remain.
I also waited for the initial data of GP-B and the technique of processing results in free access, but they not appeared. I assumed that there would be jumps in the trajectory of motion of sample B and in the behavior of the gyros, analogous to jumps of the Pioneers.
Pioneer_01.jpg. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064.pdf
Such jumps are perfectly logical when moving through the set of toroidal gravitational waves of the Earth's gravisphere (GP-B) and the gravisphere of solar system (the Pioneers).
The jumps of the trajectory and velocity are a demonstration of the force action of toroidal gravitational waves on orbital bodies and gyroscopes (such force actions I could see happening visually http://www.spacenewsbg.com/data/Saturn_rings1.jpg ). To understand the principles of work and to design EM Drive, it is necessary to investigate precisely these power actions. In my opinion, there are no other mechanisms of force formation in the Universe. It is precisely such forceful actions, in the form of periodic noise, prevent to Monomorphic to conducte research.
The jumps in the motion of the spacecraft GP-B and in the behavior of the gyros have indeed been discovered, but there is no free access to information.
Now I do not believe in any statement of physics and I immediately find alternative explanations.
I support Signature of Peter Lauwer «Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. — Richard Feynman»
It's good that the Pioneers project did not undergo any correction. Now the anomalous movement of the Pioneers stimulates research.
It is now too late to find out who correctly made experiments to detect the movement of the luminiferous medium, who experimented incorrectly, and who falsified the data.
I found a simple and in my opinion a real explanation of the structure of the universe and the behavior of space vehicles, with the help of a single essence (I could see happening visually), which corresponds to Occam's razor. To explain the structure of the universe, there is no need for "dark matter", "dark energy", "big explosion", "virtual and pseudo particles", "particles of God", etc.
In my explanations, I always try to give an analogy with something and to give the results of experiments. Therefore, it does not follow to say unfoundedly:
I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.
Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is.
The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range.
Dear meberbs
It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations. And me, and you and to other forum participants will be interested in reading not hypothetical, fantastic and mystical explanations of phenomena, but explanations of phenomena, confirmed by experiment and observations.
Now there are other more informative experiments on the motion of the luminiferous medium, these are, first of all, the experiments of the missions Pioneer, LAGEOS, COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Probably, no one denies that the speed of 369 km/s (or 372 km/s), determined from the dipole component of the microwave background, is the speed of motion of the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves relative to the solar system.
The anomalous "acceleration" (inhibition) of the Pioneers confirms the presence of a viscous material medium of a physical vacuum, in which, naturally, toroidal vortices of turbulence should be formed. The interaction of such turbulence vortices of the Pioneers with orbital gravitational waves of planets caused the jumps in the speed and acceleration of the Pioneers (Pioneer_01.jpg).
To ensure that the spacecraft is not braked anomalously, but accelerated, it is necessary to install an EM Drive that will increase the energy of toroidal gravitational waves of turbulence (which almost completely compensated the inertia and deceleration of the spacecraft in the environment of the physical vacuum). To do this, you need to accurately set the geometric parameters of EM Drive and provide a certain ratio between the resonance frequencies of excitation of electromagnetic waves and the resonance frequencies of toroidal gravitational waves of turbulence formed due to the movement of the spacecraft.
In the orbital vortex of turbulence, the Earth moves along orbit. This vortex motion of the medium of the physical vacuum moves the Earth along orbit, compensating the resistance force of the medium of the physical vacuum. Michelson and Morley determined the parameters of this vortex motion of the medium of the physical vacuum.
In the future, if necessary, we can artificially increase the energy of the Earth's orbital gravitational wave at its resonance frequency, thus increasing the energy and increasing the Earth's entrainment force in the orbit and, consequently, increase the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Then, reducing the energy of the orbital wave, we will get a higher circular orbit for the Earth.
Approximately this is done by WarpTech, choosing the resonant frequencies 21.5 кГц of its setup close to the resonant frequencies of the elements of the medium of the physical vacuum 21.9 кГц, for the force action.
And it is no coincidence that the magnitude of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneers is related to the Hubble parameter. Those. and bodies surrounded by vortex toroidal gravitational waves of turbulence, and the photons move with inhibition (redshift) determined by the Hubble parameter. Consequently, statements about the "big bang", the cosmological parameters of the universe, etc., should be questioned.
Therefore, the results of measurements of Michelson and Morley on the motion of the luminiferous medium can be quite plausible. To some extent, their results are compatible to the results of measurements of the parameters of the dipole components in the missions COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Measurements of the motion of the luminiferous medium on the Earth must have a very large variance due to the complexity of the Earth's vortex gravisphere. Therefore, such measurements must be carried out in the Earth's orbit around the Sun far beyond the points of Lagrange.
I I was amazed by the results of Michelson and Morley measurements, because their understanding of the moving medium of light propagation along the Earth's orbit from the eastern quadrature of its orbit at a speed of 8 km/s coincided with my understanding. But they understood this already 90 years ago.
[Conference on the Michelson-Morley experiment held at the Mount Wilson observatory Pasadena, California February 4 and 5,//The Astrophysical Journal, vol. LXVIII (68), december 1928, No 5, p.341. (1927)]
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1483353;sess=53555 DeMeo 2011 - Dayton C. Miller Revisited.pdf
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/yabbfiles/Attachments/Figura_M_M_01.jpg
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/yabbfiles/Attachments/Figura_M_M_02.jpg
I regret that no one believed in experiments of Michelson and Morley, and science went along the path of denying the materiality of the medium of the physical vacuum.
Therefore, we came, not to causal parametric resonances in all processes, but to idealization of science, to probabilities and mysticism in causeless quantum mechanics. As a result, now we have to look for a hypothetical "dark matter", we are forced to use the concepts: "black holes", "virtual" particles, "quasiparticles", neutrinos, etc. and, hence, we cannot explain the elementary things as anomaly of the Pioneers.
Thus, one insufficiently substantiated generalization led in the future to the almost complete absence of causality in science and to the multitude of other unreasonable generalizations in physics.
Vladimir
-
#3129 by meberbs on 04 Apr, 2018 15:52
-
I believe that by such actions the leadership of the GP-B clearly demonstrated how to "prove" the foundations of GR, and many honest physicists were insulted.
Gravity Probe B did not meet its goals in terms of the accuracy of its measurements. That is a completely different statement than "its measurements are worthless." There are 2 main effects that Gravity Probe B measured, and one was clearly measured even without any corrections. The person you quoted was wrong about the errors, they were not just completely random and could be modeled to some extent. If you are going to disagree with that, you will have to point out actual flaws in the modelling used, and show that the errors in modelling are greater than claimed.
After such an assessment of the results of the mission, no self-respecting scientist can use the results of the gravity program GP-B as an argument.I also waited for the initial data of GP-B and the technique of processing results in free access, but they not appeared. I assumed that there would be jumps in the trajectory of motion of sample B and in the behavior of the gyros, analogous to jumps of the Pioneers.
The data for Gravity Probe B is available as described here. The final paper which includes descriptions of the analysis methods is here.
The Pioneer effect has been determined to be asymmetric emission of black body radiation, once someone made a sufficiently detailed thermal model.Now I do not believe in any statement of physics and I immediately find alternative explanations.
You seem to have misunderstood that statement entirely. You are trying to make up excuses to pick and choose your data to confirm your own biases, which is the exact type of thing that statement is warning against.
I support Signature of Peter Lauwer «Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. — Richard Feynman»
It is now too late to find out who correctly made experiments to detect the movement of the luminiferous medium, who experimented incorrectly, and who falsified the data.
No it is not, and as I mentioned before every person with a smartphone in their pocket is constantly running an experiment that depends on the constancy of the speed of light through GPS. I personally have worked with the raw data for GPS, and anyone who bothers can do so themselves.I found a simple and in my opinion a real explanation of the structure of the universe and the behavior of space vehicles, with the help of a single essence (I could see happening visually), which corresponds to Occam's razor.
Occam's razor isn't "the simplest explanation," but "the simplest explanation that fits the data," and it turns out the data we have that described the universe is complicated. You have not actually shown that your model matches any data, and I have shown multiple ways that some of your claims directly contradict measured data. You still have yet to explain what the nonsense terms you use even mean, so I don't see how you can call your explanation "simple."In my explanations, I always try to give an analogy with something and to give the results of experiments.
As I said already, you have not explained how any of your conclusions can come out of the one experiment you did/ You have sometimes included random graphs in your posts, such as a spectrum from beta decay, but that does not support any of your nonsensical claims about neutrinos. What it does do is support the standard descriptions of neutrinos.Therefore, it does not follow to say unfoundedly:
I gave multiple examples. I gave you an entire list of measurements of the speed of light in different directions compiled on a Wikipedia page. I pointed out that every GPS receiver is constantly running such an experiment. That really is the only thing that you have provided a numerical prediction for, but I pointed out that I can provide experimental constraints on neutrino mass if you actually bother to make a numerical prediction of it.
I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.
Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is.
The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range.
Dear meberbs
It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations.
(Note that when you challenged me that I should provide specific experiments, I am pointing back to specific examples, whereas what you just quoted was me challenging you to provide the same, and your response did not include any examples of experiments that you had provided.)And me, and you and to other forum participants will be interested in reading not hypothetical, fantastic and mystical explanations of phenomena, but explanations of phenomena, confirmed by experiment and observations.
"hypothetical, fantastic and mystical explanations " is a good description of what you have provided. You have done a lot of handwaving, but have not correlated your results to actual data, or demonstrated how your claims could predict that data.
Now there are other more informative experiments on the motion of the luminiferous medium, these are, first of all, the experiments of the missions Pioneer, LAGEOS, COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Probably, no one denies that the speed of 369 km/s (or 372 km/s), determined from the dipole component of the microwave background, is the speed of motion of the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves relative to the solar system.
Except it is not "probably, no one." Literally everyone who knows what they are talking about would deny that claim. Even the largest error bars on the early Michelson Morley experiments clearly disallow that value. Differences in time delays when communicating with interplanetary probes is yet another example where such a difference in the speed of light would be trivial to measure.
As I said before:Doppler shift and difference in the speed of light are 2 very different things. You are misinterpreting these results in a way that is inconsistent with what the results actually say.
To some extent, their results are compatible to the results of measurements of the parameters of the dipole components in the missions COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Measurements of the motion of the luminiferous medium on the Earth must have a very large variance due to the complexity of the Earth's vortex gravisphere. Therefore, such measurements must be carried out in the Earth's orbit around the Sun far beyond the points of Lagrange.
You claim that "must have a very large variance" yet the actual measurement results are extremely stable. As I pointed out above, measurements of round trip delays to interplanetary probes are yet another piece of evidence that you are wrong.I regret that no one believed in experiments of Michelson and Morley, and science went along the path of denying the materiality of the medium of the physical vacuum.
Every time you mention "belief" it demonstrates that your are not talking about science. Scientists aren't "denying" anything. You are denying the results of all but one instance of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and of every measurement of the speed of light that has happened since then.
Just about every claim you made in your post is something that either I already provided evidence to the contrary for, or is based on false statements about the Pioneer anomaly given that it has been explained, with a bit of false statements about gravity probe B. -
#3130 by OnlyMe on 04 Apr, 2018 16:07
-
@ fvlad
First to be honest I did not make it through your entire “post”.
Next I don’t see how your argument apply to the EmDrive, the subject of this thread. With that in mind....
The Michaelson & Morley experiment resulted in “NULL RESULTS” not “NEGATIVE RESULTS”. In Other Words.., the experiment(s) were not conclusive. They proved only that the experimental design failed to measure, which could mean that there was nothing to measure or that the design was just unable to measure...
Beyond that your reference links re: the G-Probe B discussion on Physics Forum predated the final published results by about a year (the thread was locked a few posts after a link to the final paper was posted), and the link re The Pioneer Anomaly again predates the final results and analysis of the available data.
While I am uncertain that the final paper/analysis re the Pioneer Anomaly represents a conclusive explanation of the anomalous acceleration (my reasoning being outside the context of this thread), the conclusions fit the available data/evidence far better than the many counter speculations, including my own.
The point here is that your argument and supporting links seem cherry picked to fit predetermined ideas... and stand in conflict with the accepted final analysis of the available data, in both cases.
Question, is this a general theoretical discussion or does it have some real association with an EmDrive? -
#3131 by dustinthewind on 05 Apr, 2018 04:29
-
I have had all chaos come down on me, so I have been out of the picture for a while. I have still been mulling over ideas reguardless
One of them is the Transverse Magnetic mode (electrons are excited up and down) operation of the EM drive and the Mach Effect. I am not sure it even requires a conical cavity and could possibly be done with a cylinder? I am proposing moving the electrons up and down along the cavity walls in the same fashion as you would a MEGA drive but at the microwave frequency. It would take injecting a frequency into the cylinder or frustum that resonates and then introduce a harmonic 2nd 2f frequency multiple of the first. There would be some issues of modulating the phase of the 2nd signal to see if it has any effect on thrust. Antenna placement of the 1st and 2nd signal may also be important. I don't have a very solid opinion yet on exact antenna placement. Whether it could be a single antenna or would have to be 2 antennas.
Further enhancement of the electron displacement to maximize acceleration in one direction while minimizing acceleration of the electrons in the other direction can be enhanced by introducing 3f, 4f, and 5f ... signals but might be tricky. May be easier to keep it simple with just two.
I have included an image of a mach effect displacement wave form enhanced with the extra frequencies. The top is a dual frequency displacement. The 2nd uses 5 frequencies. Notice the difference in acceleration at one end as opposed to the other. Phase control can reverse the direction of maximum acceleration so it is kind of like a phased array I think.
While electrons weigh a lot less than a brass mass maybe it is possible to enhance the effect with the increase in frequency and Q of the cavity. The exact behavior (modes) of the currents would be very important as you need non-symmetric acceleration of currents in the cavity to constructively work together.
I am not sure what effect this might have on photon conversion. Accelerating charges produce light. Might be interesting to look into asymmetric acceleration of such charges.
On a side note:
Something interesting is even in combustion engines the quality factor is important. Each atom slamming into the cylinder is only capable to transferring a small amount of energy via the difference in mass of it and the cylinder. However, increasing the temperature and pressure increases the number of times the atoms slam against the cylinder. The stroke length of the cylinder with number of atomic impacts enhances the energy drained from the gas. Similar to how an accelerating mirror can absorb more energy from photons 2nd order Doppler effects after many reflections. One of the reasons why the Diesel engine is inherently more efficient than gasoline. Unfortunately our modern day engines still fall short... So, I am hopeful the Q factor may help the mach effect just as much as it does the combustion engine and the recycled laser thrusters.
Another side note isQuote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spaceIn 1905–06 Henri Poincaré showed[4] that by taking time to be an imaginary fourth spacetime coordinate ict, where c is the speed of light and i is the imaginary unit, a Lorentz transformation can formally be regarded as a rotation of coordinates in a four-dimensional space with three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate representing time, as the fourth dimension.
Thought you all might find interesting some thoughts I have illustrated in an image of Minkowski space. Trying to iron out some thoughts on the vacuum, flat/curved space, and how it might be related to time gradients and gravity. Trying to understand the vacuum better in my own way. Image attached below.
By_dismissing_Minkowskis_notation_x4ict_are_we_not_losing_an_essential_aspect_of_space-time_structure
-
#3132 by Chrochne on 06 Apr, 2018 04:07
-
Exciting news all around lately.
First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding
. We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon
In his words on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20
"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes."
"Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.html
End of text
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
-
#3133 by Bob Woods on 06 Apr, 2018 04:38
-
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them!
-
#3134 by Chrochne on 06 Apr, 2018 05:06
-
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them!
Lets keep the beans in the pocket for the moment
I think they have the reasons to do that, and I do not want to feed the rumours. We know that was really not good to do that in the case of the EmDrive.
Now I am really interested in recent progress of the LemDrive. It was interesting to see how Travis S. Taylor and Mike McCulloch ideas work together More so that Mr. Travis S. Taylor have really interesting research position (and is part of military, space command ect.) and that such guy got interested in this. I think that we also noticed how Prof. Tajmar jumped on this. We know he was bit reluctant in the EmDrive, but tested it. Now he really jumped at this LemDrive.
Lets see how it will progress. We all are sitting in front seat of this spectacle
-
#3135 by Chrochne on 06 Apr, 2018 06:03
-
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them!
Lets keep the beans in the pocket for the moment I think they have the reasons to do that, and I do not want to feed the rumours. We know that was really not good to do that in the case of the EmDrive.
Now I am really interested in recent progress of the LemDrive. It was interesting to see how Travis S. Taylor and Mike McCulloch ideas work together More so that Mr. Travis S. Taylor have really interesting research position (and is part of military, space command ect.) and that such guy got interested in this. I think that we also noticed how Prof. Tajmar jumped on this. We know he was bit reluctant in the EmDrive, but tested it. Now he really jumped at this LemDrive.
Lets see how it will progress. We all are sitting in front seat of this spectacle
By the way I really wonder, if the recent news on the "Galaxy without Dark matter" supports Mr. McCulloch theory. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/03/a-galaxy-without-dark-matter.html -
#3136 by Star One on 06 Apr, 2018 06:25
-
Exciting news all around lately.
First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding. We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon
In his words on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20
"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes."
"Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.html
End of text
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
Blimey that’s almost three times the maximum level of the Phase II funding Dr Woodward could receive. -
#3137 by Chrochne on 06 Apr, 2018 07:56
-
Exciting news all around lately.
First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding. We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon
In his words on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20
"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes."
"Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.html
End of text
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
Blimey that’s almost three times the maximum level of the Phase II funding Dr Woodward could receive.
That much? I was thinking that it was far less actually. That is very interesting indeed! Any idea what may have convinced them?
By the way. To all - I wrote to Mr. McCulloch, if he can write us some comments here on the NSF. He used to do that in the past. Feel free folks to contact him and ask him too :-). -
#3138 by flux_capacitor on 06 Apr, 2018 10:48
-
By the way. To all - I wrote to Mr. McCulloch, if he can write us some comments here on the NSF. He used to do that in the past. Feel free folks to contact him and ask him too :-).
Well, I am a supporter of all clever disruptive theories, including McCulloch's quantised inertia. But although I kindly asked him two simple questions about MiHsC that I cannot solve myself, both on twitter and here on these boards a few pages back, pointing him from twitter to this post, he (and no one else BTW) didn't answer at all. Are my considerations silly or what? Even if this is the case I would be glad if one could point out my basic errors.
EDIT — April 10, 2018
Mike McCulloch didn't answer because he was on a trip in Spain with limited access to the Internet. Here is what he (and Franck McBecker) replied on Twitter, addressing my questions.
About the weak radiation pressure due Unruh temperature:
- "The subject you stipulate as radiation pressure affects “each particle” individually and the resulting force on a bunch of mass is the accumulated value"
- "it impacts at the particle level, see my paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775"
About the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces:
- "The short answer to that is that relativity does not preclude monochromatic waves traveling faster than c, since no information is carried."
- "This is not a compete answer tho, because the horizon is actually a horizon in the future so there is something more going on here that looks like the EPR paradox." -
#3139 by Star One on 06 Apr, 2018 11:08
-
This seems a rather bold claim?
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981910517806780417?s=20QuoteMike McCulloch
@memcculloch
#QI will radically alter the world. It will unify physics, get rid of the red herrings of #darkmatter or strings, replace chemical rockets & show how to get energy out of horizons. Not bad for a mere £1.3million.
. We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon 
I think they have the reasons to do that, and I do not want to feed the rumours. We know that was really not good to do that in the case of the EmDrive.