-
#3140 by cvbn on 06 Apr, 2018 12:35
-
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.
Prof. Tajmar will do Taylor's EmDrive ( http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238 or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators ) , LEMDrive is being done by prof. Perez-Diaz.
Unless you call Taylor's EmDrive LEMdrive? But according to McCulloch this is LEMDrive: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html -
#3141 by PotomacNeuron on 06 Apr, 2018 12:41
-
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.
His association of QI with EmDrive had negative impact on my impression of QI. -
#3142 by Augmentor on 06 Apr, 2018 14:10
-
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.
His association of QI with EmDrive had negative impact on my impression of QI.
Ah, where do I begin...
MM: #QI will radically alter the world.
ANS: Yes, it will in part, just like any working space drive will whether one calls it a breakthrough, game changer or disruptive technology
It will unify physics,
ANS: Good luck with that.
MM: get rid of the red herrings of #darkmatter or strings
ANS a bit arrogant since proving a negative can be quite challenging if at all.
MM: replace chemical rockets &
ANS: Eventually, but not entirely. Technology accumulates.
MM: show how to get energy out of horizons.
ANS: Some energy perhaps...The key here is efficiently obtaining energy anywhere at anytime. However, theory is all out.
Not bad for a mere £1.3million -
#3143 by meberbs on 06 Apr, 2018 15:36
-
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
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation. -
#3144 by RERT on 06 Apr, 2018 16:36
-
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
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation.
I have to agree. With hindsight any theory based solely on visible matter seems doomed if variable quantities of dark matter are required to explain observations. -
#3145 by flux_capacitor on 06 Apr, 2018 19:52
-
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
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation.
I have to agree. With hindsight any theory based solely on visible matter seems doomed if variable quantities of dark matter are required to explain observations.
I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.
You'd have to read some advices of professional astronomers and astrophysicists (not the news media) about the method used in the paper (PDF freely available), including this particular comment on Reddit which triggered more than 8000 (!) upvotes in a week:
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/880bgl/astronomers_find_the_first_and_only_known_galaxy/dwh3c44/
If such considerations do have a real basis, I would be very perplex about the journal that has published that paper being… Nature. -
#3146 by meberbs on 06 Apr, 2018 20:32
-
I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.
I have considered mentioning the first bullet in some of my posts about this as well. This is a single study, that needs time for others to consider the data, and methods. It also needs time for others to search for other similar cases, as it is unlikely that this galaxy is completely unique. All of the recent things I have seen about dark matter seem to be piling more evidence in that is difficult to fit with alternative explanations. Given this consistency, I consider this conclusion to have a little more weight than I usually would for papers that have yet to have had time to be verified. Unless further research finds a major error, completely contradicting this conclusion, this will likely be the final nail in the coffin of many alternative hypotheses. It is important to note that it isn't there yet though.
I haven't read the original paper myself, so I can't really comment on the second bullet, but some of the better reporting on it that I read included some of the more numeric conclusions, which clearly indicated that it is "low dark matter" not "no dark matter," which seems to be one of the main points of the reddit post you mentioned. Mass media almost always overstates results, but if the results were "no dark matter" I would actually be more skeptical, since it seems unlikely any one galaxy would not end up with any dark matter at all. -
#3147 by Star One on 06 Apr, 2018 20:46
-
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
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation.
I have to agree. With hindsight any theory based solely on visible matter seems doomed if variable quantities of dark matter are required to explain observations.
I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.
You'd have to read some advices of professional astronomers and astrophysicists (not the news media) about the method used in the paper (PDF freely available), including this particular comment on Reddit which triggered more than 8000 (!) upvotes in a week:
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/880bgl/astronomers_find_the_first_and_only_known_galaxy/dwh3c44/
If such considerations do have a real basis, I would be very perplex about the journal that has published that paper being… Nature.
That post on Reddit to my eye immediately undermines itself with its intemperate language, I don’t care if the person claims to be a professional astronomer because that’s not a good way to put their argument across and their casting aspersions at Nature is pretty poor form. -
#3148 by Klebiano on 06 Apr, 2018 20:47
-
I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.
I have considered mentioning the first bullet in some of my posts about this as well. This is a single study, that needs time for others to consider the data, and methods. It also needs time for others to search for other similar cases, as it is unlikely that this galaxy is completely unique. All of the recent things I have seen about dark matter seem to be piling more evidence in that is difficult to fit with alternative explanations. Given this consistency, I consider this conclusion to have a little more weight than I usually would for papers that have yet to have had time to be verified. Unless further research finds a major error, completely contradicting this conclusion, this will likely be the final nail in the coffin of many alternative hypotheses. It is important to note that it isn't there yet though.
I haven't read the original paper myself, so I can't really comment on the second bullet, but some of the better reporting on it that I read included some of the more numeric conclusions, which clearly indicated that it is "low dark matter" not "no dark matter," which seems to be one of the main points of the reddit post you mentioned. Mass media almost always overstates results, but if the results were "no dark matter" I would actually be more skeptical, since it seems unlikely any one galaxy would not end up with any dark matter at all.
A low dark matter galaxy is still something almost impossible to explain by the alternative theories, but I agree that it needs more data and replication. In recent years dark matter has suffered a lot for the lack of results, which has increased the number of these alternative theories, but now is the time to also test if these new theories can take the heat.
Ps: Sorry for the bad english, still learning. -
#3149 by flux_capacitor on 06 Apr, 2018 20:57
-
So you think it’s ok to cast aspersions on Nature, especially when you’re using as your main justification a post on Reddit. Isn’t that touch hypercritical?
I don't have the impression to have casted aspersions on anyone or anything contrary to others here, so please keep this kind of remark for yourself. I expressed a legitimate conditional "if" which justly translates my perplexity against such critics, especially since, like everyone else, I think Nature has the highest editorial standards. In the same time I don't feel the need to act like a believer holding a Bible, so I admit everyone, including the best referees, can be mistaken sometimes. It happened in the past. I do not judge anyone except the data. -
#3150 by Star One on 06 Apr, 2018 21:10
-
So you think it’s ok to cast aspersions on Nature, especially when you’re using as your main justification a post on Reddit. Isn’t that touch hypercritical?
I don't have the impression to have casted aspersions on anyone or anything contrary to others here, so please keep this kind of remark for yourself. I expressed a legitimate conditional "if" which justly translates my perplexity against such critics, especially since, like everyone else, I think Nature has the highest editorial standards. In the same time I don't feel the need to act like a believer holding a Bible, so I admit everyone, including the best referees, can be mistaken sometimes. It happened in the past. I do not judge anyone except the data.
I have already edited my OP to clarify my point and remove some unnecessary language. As my argument was more with the Reddit post you linked to you than yourself so apologies on that. -
#3151 by flux_capacitor on 06 Apr, 2018 21:34
-
So you think it’s ok to cast aspersions on Nature, especially when you’re using as your main justification a post on Reddit. Isn’t that touch hypercritical?
I don't have the impression to have casted aspersions on anyone or anything contrary to others here, so please keep this kind of remark for yourself. I expressed a legitimate conditional "if" which justly translates my perplexity against such critics, especially since, like everyone else, I think Nature has the highest editorial standards. In the same time I don't feel the need to act like a believer holding a Bible, so I admit everyone, including the best referees, can be mistaken sometimes. It happened in the past. I do not judge anyone except the data.
I have already edited my OP to clarify my point and remove some unnecessary language. As my argument was more with the Reddit post you linked to you than yourself so apologies on that.
Fair enough, I also think any proper contradiction should be published as a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed journal and at least on the arXiv, and I don't want to give an undue weight to a simpler blog post or forums. The subject is rather important for its cosmological implications. -
#3152 by fvlad on 07 Apr, 2018 12:31
-
Question, is this a general theoretical discussion or does it have some real association with an EmDrive?
OnlyMe
This discussion is directly related to EM Drive. For example, you wrote:
OnlyMe Thread 9 « Reply #3272 on: 03/19/2017 02:00 PM »
«NO ONE has yet presented data that even seems designed to demonstrate how any force is produced. At least not that has been publicly shared or published».
I have said it before. It would be the most exciting event in my lifetime should anyone demonstrate the ability to manipulate gravity or inertia in a useful manner, but I don't believe that is what is going on in an EmDrive. I also believe that should we ultimately prove the EmDrive to be a useful propelentless drive, it will ultimately be found to function within the context of existing physics, even should that require that we re-evaluate our understanding and interpretation of what we have come to accept as basic laws of physics.
I think until we see the result of the interaction of gravitational waves «demonstrate how how any force is produced» until we learn how to make calculations, we will not learn to «manipulate gravity or inertia» and EmDrive's development will be significantly braked.
In my opinion, data on how "any force is produced" has been published quite many time. However, the abstract and ideal properties of matter and fields, which are accepted in our science, interfere with "seeing" and understanding the operation principle of these devices [ссылка].
The first set of drawings shows how most represent gravity waves, the principles of engine operation and wormholes.
Warp drive and hypothetical gravitational waves_01.jpg
But these are only hypothetical representations.
The second set of images are photographs of toroidal formations, showing the actions of toroidal gravitational waves, which form the force, i.e. can serve as a demonstration of the formation of force in reality. The principle of work of the "Warp engine" and EM Drive is based on the formation of such a force.
Real gravitational waves and the mechanism of formation of force_01.jpg
For example, flux_capacitor gave an example of the mechanism of the action of force in the "natural particle accelerator"
flux_capacitor Thread 9 « Reply #3402 on: 04/03/2017 01:09 PM »
«the magnetic field is maximum near sunspots (where magnetic field lines are denser and concentrated in a smaller area) and minimum at the highest extension point of the arch (where magnetic field lines are more scattered over a wider area). Thus a strong magnetic pressure gradient takes place in the solar prominence, and the arch acts as a natural particle accelerator».
I gave an example of "demonstrating how any force is produced"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv
«Annihilation» of the electron-positron pair is analogous to the binary mergers of neutron stars.
Another analogue of the process of neutron stars is process of approaching of satellites of Saturn, Prometheus and Pandora. This process of approaching of the satellites was recorded by Cassini.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv
We see the force action of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of each satellite with the matter of the rings of Saturn. The fans of de Broglie's gravitational waves are immobile relative to their satellites. The direction of the action of the force of the gravitational waves of de Broglie on the rings of Saturn coincides with the direction of the action of force on the satellites, i.e. the matter of the rings of Saturn is an indicator of the direction of the action of force. In this case, (see video), toroidal gravitational waves push satellites toward each other. This is how the mechanism of attraction of satellites is realized among themselves by means of toroidal gravitational waves.
My discussion in this forum is connected with an attempt (hopefully not fruitless) to show that de Broglie waves are not probability waves, but real toroidal gravitational waves formed in the material medium of a physical vacuum. My opponents, of course, say that my statements contradict experiments, including the results of the experiments of Michelson and Morley. This is a normal discussion, I have no experience of discussions, so I'm grateful to meberbs for useful information.
In my opinion, the interaction of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie is the only and universal mechanism for the formation of force, there are no other mechanisms in the Universe, and there are no other fundamental elements besides toroidal structures.
Toroidal gravitational waves have a strictly defined topology and are formed as a result of the classical quantum parametric resonance of high Q in the medium of a physical vacuum that has a viscosity related to the Hubble parameter. The medium of the physical vacuum also consists of de Broglie's dynamic and material waves, so this is a nonlinear medium.
All particles and bodies interact only on close resonant frequencies of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves. These characteristic resonance frequencies of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie can be found experimentally, as the maximum of the force, how did Warptech, or to predict by calculation and then to confirm by experiment.
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
The similarity relations (based on the electron parameters), for calculation of the resonance frequencies of the basic elements of the physical vacuum medium are given, and in link of he second essay can be found file in Excel, where for ease of searching, there is tables of all resonant frequencies are presented and useful and useless for EM Drive. Useless in the sense that at these resonant frequencies EM Drive will not fly in space, they are characteristic only for gravisphere of the Earth' and are related to the parameters of gravitation on Earth. Some resonance frequencies are more common, fundamental and effective, others are less fundamental and effective.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YQnJqP0iD0cPZpS8HEgF0pCFCRZie3x/view?usp=sharing
For example, it is known that Chinese scientists have reached the greatest power/kilowatt, I think it is no accident. I do not know how, the scientists of China managed to determine the optimal, in my opinion, the diameter of its EM Drive 235 mm. With this diameter, the resonance frequency of the outer surface of the cylinder is 406 MHz. However, given the radius of inertia of a real cylindrical structure, its real resonance frequency will be slightly higher. At the same time, in the near frequency range, the most fundamental elements of the physical vacuum environment have the following resonant frequencies 9.427 MHz, 411 MHz, 17.94 GHz. (I determined that all the fundamental resonant frequencies differ 43.6 times in frequency, and are related to the resonant frequency of the Compton electron wave).
Thus, due to resonant dispersion interaction between close frequencies EM Drive 235 mm and elements of the medium of physical vacuum 411 MHz, a force arises. Hence, it can be concluded that the EM Drive 235 mm cylindrical design is optimal for forming the maximum link with supporting medium of the physical vacuum and for forming the EM Drive traction force. The operating frequency of 2.435 GHz is not optimal, but its 6th subharmonic is very close to the frequency of 411 MHz. Those. EM Drive 235 mm is, in fact, a parametric generator.
Operating frequencies of 2.435 GHz and 411 MHz form toroidal gravitational waves of inertia in EM Drive 235 mm (standing electromagnetic waves, analogues of Compton electron waves). However, not Compton waves form the force of inertia and pulling force, they are formed by the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves (formed by Compton waves), which have low frequencies and interact in a large volume of the medium of the physical vacuum.
The frequency of the de Broglie waves is equal to the frequency of the precession of the Compton waves and is formed by modulating the fundamental excitation frequencies EM Drive. In the case of using a magnetron, this modulation condition by low-frequency signals is performed automatically, but the process is uncontrolled. Those. the spectrum of the magnetron is wide and can contain the necessary modulation frequencies, and may not contain them. Then on Earth EM Drive can work, but in space there is not. Therefore, it is better to use a monochromatic generator with the necessary signal modulation frequencies. Without monochromatic signal modulation at useful low frequencies, EM Drive is not effective.
In Woodward's installation, the periodic force of inertia of vibrator mass generates toroidal gravitational waves of large dimensions, with a wavelength of the order of kilometers and tens of kilometers. In the frequency range of the Woodward installation and the vibrator at the Monomorphic installation, the following fundamental frequencies of the elements of the physical vacuum environment can be noted: 2.6 Hz, 113.6 Hz, 4.955 kHz and 216.1 kHz.
It should be noted that the anomalous frequency of 2.5 Hz was the most used frequency of HAARP for studying phenomena in the Earth's magnetosphere.
Here, briefly, how my work is related to the construct of EM Drive and predicting the effectiveness of its work.
“There is nothing as practical as a good theory”. Kurt Lewin and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff.
Vladimir
-
#3153 by OnlyMe on 07 Apr, 2018 16:00
-
Question, is this a general theoretical discussion or does it have some real association with an EmDrive?
OnlyMe
This discussion is directly related to EM Drive. For example, you wrote:
OnlyMe Thread 9 « Reply #3272 on: 03/19/2017 02:00 PM »
«NO ONE has yet presented data that even seems designed to demonstrate how any force is produced. At least not that has been publicly shared or published».
I have said it before. It would be the most exciting event in my lifetime should anyone demonstrate the ability to manipulate gravity or inertia in a useful manner, but I don't believe that is what is going on in an EmDrive. I also believe that should we ultimately prove the EmDrive to be a useful propelentless drive, it will ultimately be found to function within the context of existing physics, even should that require that we re-evaluate our understanding and interpretation of what we have come to accept as basic laws of physics.
I think until we see the result of the interaction of gravitational waves «demonstrate how how any force is produced» until we learn how to make calculations, we will not learn to «manipulate gravity or inertia» and EmDrive's development will be significantly braked.
In my opinion, data on how "any force is produced" has been published quite many time. However, the abstract and ideal properties of matter and fields, which are accepted in our science, interfere with "seeing" and understanding the operation principle of these devices [ссылка].
The first set of drawings shows how most represent gravity waves, the principles of engine operation and wormholes.
Warp drive and hypothetical gravitational waves_01.jpg
But these are only hypothetical representations.
The second set of images are photographs of toroidal formations, showing the actions of toroidal gravitational waves, which form the force, i.e. can serve as a demonstration of the formation of force in reality. The principle of work of the "Warp engine" and EM Drive is based on the formation of such a force.
Real gravitational waves and the mechanism of formation of force_01.jpg
For example, flux_capacitor gave an example of the mechanism of the action of force in the "natural particle accelerator"
flux_capacitor Thread 9 « Reply #3402 on: 04/03/2017 01:09 PM »
«the magnetic field is maximum near sunspots (where magnetic field lines are denser and concentrated in a smaller area) and minimum at the highest extension point of the arch (where magnetic field lines are more scattered over a wider area). Thus a strong magnetic pressure gradient takes place in the solar prominence, and the arch acts as a natural particle accelerator».
I gave an example of "demonstrating how any force is produced"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv
«Annihilation» of the electron-positron pair is analogous to the binary mergers of neutron stars.
Another analogue of the process of neutron stars is process of approaching of satellites of Saturn, Prometheus and Pandora. This process of approaching of the satellites was recorded by Cassini.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv
We see the force action of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of each satellite with the matter of the rings of Saturn. The fans of de Broglie's gravitational waves are immobile relative to their satellites. The direction of the action of the force of the gravitational waves of de Broglie on the rings of Saturn coincides with the direction of the action of force on the satellites, i.e. the matter of the rings of Saturn is an indicator of the direction of the action of force. In this case, (see video), toroidal gravitational waves push satellites toward each other. This is how the mechanism of attraction of satellites is realized among themselves by means of toroidal gravitational waves.
My discussion in this forum is connected with an attempt (hopefully not fruitless) to show that de Broglie waves are not probability waves, but real toroidal gravitational waves formed in the material medium of a physical vacuum. My opponents, of course, say that my statements contradict experiments, including the results of the experiments of Michelson and Morley. This is a normal discussion, I have no experience of discussions, so I'm grateful to meberbs for useful information.
In my opinion, the interaction of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie is the only and universal mechanism for the formation of force, there are no other mechanisms in the Universe, and there are no other fundamental elements besides toroidal structures.
Toroidal gravitational waves have a strictly defined topology and are formed as a result of the classical quantum parametric resonance of high Q in the medium of a physical vacuum that has a viscosity related to the Hubble parameter. The medium of the physical vacuum also consists of de Broglie's dynamic and material waves, so this is a nonlinear medium.
All particles and bodies interact only on close resonant frequencies of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves. These characteristic resonance frequencies of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie can be found experimentally, as the maximum of the force, how did Warptech, or to predict by calculation and then to confirm by experiment.
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
The similarity relations (based on the electron parameters), for calculation of the resonance frequencies of the basic elements of the physical vacuum medium are given, and in link of he second essay can be found file in Excel, where for ease of searching, there is tables of all resonant frequencies are presented and useful and useless for EM Drive. Useless in the sense that at these resonant frequencies EM Drive will not fly in space, they are characteristic only for gravisphere of the Earth' and are related to the parameters of gravitation on Earth. Some resonance frequencies are more common, fundamental and effective, others are less fundamental and effective.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YQnJqP0iD0cPZpS8HEgF0pCFCRZie3x/view?usp=sharing
For example, it is known that Chinese scientists have reached the greatest power/kilowatt, I think it is no accident. I do not know how, the scientists of China managed to determine the optimal, in my opinion, the diameter of its EM Drive 235 mm. With this diameter, the resonance frequency of the outer surface of the cylinder is 406 MHz. However, given the radius of inertia of a real cylindrical structure, its real resonance frequency will be slightly higher. At the same time, in the near frequency range, the most fundamental elements of the physical vacuum environment have the following resonant frequencies 9.427 MHz, 411 MHz, 17.94 GHz. (I determined that all the fundamental resonant frequencies differ 43.6 times in frequency, and are related to the resonant frequency of the Compton electron wave).
Thus, due to resonant dispersion interaction between close frequencies EM Drive 235 mm and elements of the medium of physical vacuum 411 MHz, a force arises. Hence, it can be concluded that the EM Drive 235 mm cylindrical design is optimal for forming the maximum link with supporting medium of the physical vacuum and for forming the EM Drive traction force. The operating frequency of 2.435 GHz is not optimal, but its 6th subharmonic is very close to the frequency of 411 MHz. Those. EM Drive 235 mm is, in fact, a parametric generator.
Operating frequencies of 2.435 GHz and 411 MHz form toroidal gravitational waves of inertia in EM Drive 235 mm (standing electromagnetic waves, analogues of Compton electron waves). However, not Compton waves form the force of inertia and pulling force, they are formed by the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves (formed by Compton waves), which have low frequencies and interact in a large volume of the medium of the physical vacuum.
The frequency of the de Broglie waves is equal to the frequency of the precession of the Compton waves and is formed by modulating the fundamental excitation frequencies EM Drive. In the case of using a magnetron, this modulation condition by low-frequency signals is performed automatically, but the process is uncontrolled. Those. the spectrum of the magnetron is wide and can contain the necessary modulation frequencies, and may not contain them. Then on Earth EM Drive can work, but in space there is not. Therefore, it is better to use a monochromatic generator with the necessary signal modulation frequencies. Without monochromatic signal modulation at useful low frequencies, EM Drive is not effective.
In Woodward's installation, the periodic force of inertia of vibrator mass generates toroidal gravitational waves of large dimensions, with a wavelength of the order of kilometers and tens of kilometers. In the frequency range of the Woodward installation and the vibrator at the Monomorphic installation, the following fundamental frequencies of the elements of the physical vacuum environment can be noted: 2.6 Hz, 113.6 Hz, 4.955 kHz and 216.1 kHz.
It should be noted that the anomalous frequency of 2.5 Hz was the most used frequency of HAARP for studying phenomena in the Earth's magnetosphere.
Here, briefly, how my work is related to the construct of EM Drive and predicting the effectiveness of its work.
“There is nothing as practical as a good theory”. Kurt Lewin and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff.
Vladimir
To start... it would be far better should you break your argument and posts into “bite” sized segments. As it stands there are far too many questionable issues to carry on any kind of reasonable discussion.
Examples of what appear to be unclearly defined words and concepts include:
What exactly do you believe gravity/gravitational waves are? Are you attempting to suggest that gravity propagates as waves from a single body source?... While our only evidence of gravity waves originates from rapidly orbiting massive two body sources.
Then how do you get to toroidal gravitational waves?
And jump to associating de Brogalie waves with gravity and maybe even the toroidal gravitational waves questioned above?
Your quotes of my past comments must be out of context, though I have not gone back to re-read the full posts... I am almost certain that my intent was and remains that sometimes the theoretical speculations about how an EmDrive works are speculations without supporting published experimental data... and that in my opinion, once conclusive data demonstrating that an EmDrive does produce useable thrust is published, there will be time to explore how it does what it does. To this point as far as the published documentation of the EmDrive is concerned, experimental exploration remains an engineering effort, rather than based on a theory of operation... Even while there does seem to be some attempt to design to theory, until credible reproducible proof of useable thrust has been documented, there remains no means to test any theory of operation.
Lastly, as for how an EmDrive produces useable thrust, assuming that it does, I believe it is far more likely that the underlying mechanism will be found in an adaptation of our understanding of the dynamic interaction between the resonant EM field(s) within the cavity and the induced currents and EM field(s) within the walls of the frustum... With a far far less likely potential that manipulation of the fundamental inertial properties of the frustum, or spacetime/gravitational field and/or virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, is involved...
-
#3154 by meberbs on 07 Apr, 2018 16:04
-
In my opinion, data on how "any force is produced" has been published quite many time.
Sometimes opinions are factually incorrect. This is one of those times.The second set of images are photographs of toroidal formations, showing the actions of toroidal gravitational waves,
Most of those images don't even have toroid shapes in them. Many are simply circles, or crosssections of other shapes like spheres or cylinders that you are using to feed your confirmation bias. A lot of them have absolutely nothing to do with gravity either.For example, flux_capacitor gave an example of the mechanism of the action of force in the "natural particle accelerator"
Thiswas in the context of corona heating and the solar wind and has no relation to what you are discussing.
flux_capacitor Thread 9 « Reply #3402 on: 04/03/2017 01:09 PM »
«the magnetic field is maximum near sunspots (where magnetic field lines are denser and concentrated in a smaller area) and minimum at the highest extension point of the arch (where magnetic field lines are more scattered over a wider area). Thus a strong magnetic pressure gradient takes place in the solar prominence, and the arch acts as a natural particle accelerator».I gave an example of "demonstrating how any force is produced"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv
Read the description of the video here. This video in no way supports any of your claims, and just demonstrates the effect of the slightly elliptical orbit of the moon combined with the different orbital period of the ring material compared to the moon.My opponents, of course, say that my statements contradict experiments, including the results of the experiments of Michelson and Morley. This is a normal discussion, I have no experience of discussions, so I'm grateful to meberbs for useful information.
One more incorrect statement about experimental results. They later retracted those results as further experiments showed no detectable force generation to within their experimental sensitivity when they used a new setup that eliminated a previously unaccounted for error source.
...
For example, it is known that Chinese scientists have reached the greatest power/kilowatt, I think it is no accident. -
#3155 by craigel on 07 Apr, 2018 18:09
-
I'm still very curious about the work that Monomorphic is doing. It seems that there have been a lot of issues with getting the level of sensitivity required for reliable measurements, but I was wondering if there was anything about the preliminary results that indicated that something might be happening. I.E. have there been results that might indicate thrust even if sources of error could not be satisfactorily ruled out.
It's understandable, not wanting to make any proclamations when one is dissatisfied with the accuracy of the results but I really want to know whether something is being fine tuned or simply doesn't appear to be happening in the first place. -
#3156 by Monomorphic on 07 Apr, 2018 23:22
-
I'm still very curious about the work that Monomorphic is doing. It seems that there have been a lot of issues with getting the level of sensitivity required for reliable measurements, but I was wondering if there was anything about the preliminary results that indicated that something might be happening. I.E. have there been results that might indicate thrust even if sources of error could
Right now I am working on a 10-contact liquid metal contact system so I can continue tests on the torsion pendulum with minimum heartache. The hardware is already printed and today I'm working on the wiring. I will order the 10 oz of liquid metal needed this week.
Then I begin work on automating the thrust balance experiment using LabView. If there is anyone here with experience with LabView, please let me know. It would be nice to have a resource like that.
Long term, I am very interested in designing and building a Sub-Micro Newton Rotary Thrust Stand that can rotate freely.
-
#3157 by WarpTech on 08 Apr, 2018 03:08
-
...
Long term, I am very interested in designing and building a Sub-Micro Newton Rotary Thrust Stand that can rotate freely.
I would agree with that. The thrust balance is a peak-detector. The slow response time will not give an average of the applied force but will favor the peaks. That's okay when we're trying to measure very small forces to verify there is a force at all. But to verify theory, we need extremely accurate values of both the peak instantaneous force and the average steady-state force over time. A rotary test stand can do that, provided you can build it in a vacuum chamber. -
#3158 by fvlad on 08 Apr, 2018 05:25
-
The motion of this medium would be trivial to detect, such as by any GPS receiver. (Even an 8 km/s offset in the speed of light would produce errors of around 500 m. GPS is much better than that.)
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.Dear meberbs
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.
It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations.
Dear meberbs, about GPS: you consider this to be one of the main arguments, but I'm afraid that you are mistaken.
Changes in the arrival time of electromagnetic waves, when moving the light propagation medium in a GPS system, practically do not affect the result of calculating the coordinates, because:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS
«Each DGPS uses a network of fixed ground-based reference stations to broadcast the difference between the positions indicated by the GPS satellite systems and known fixed positions. These stations broadcast the difference between the measured satellite pseudoranges and actual (internally computed) pseudoranges, and receiver stations may correct their pseudoranges by the same amount. The digital correction signal is typically broadcast locally over ground-based transmitters of shorter range».
The method of calculating the coordinates in GPS, I emphasize - in my opinion, is a good example, similar to processing of measurement results in GP-B. Then in 2011 I received information about signal processing, in which all signals were deleted, if they were very different from what should be in theory. On their sincere belief, they were accidental.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alternative-theories-being-tested-by-gravity-probe-b.104694/page-18
«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)»
I do not impose my opinion on the results of measurements in GP-B for other people, I do not have time to pointlessly discuss this further. Maybe the GP-B results are corrected and there is everything needed data. One suspicion of falsification is enough for me for considing the results of GP-B hopelessly corrupted for my use as an argument.
As you know, randomness is an unknowable regularity. For example,
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238
«Recent analyses of spacecraft flyby, Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, and Rosetta spacecraft suggest unusual short- term changes in their inertia and, likewise, unexplained accelerations».
For me, such "unusual short-term changes in their inertia" and "unexplained accelerations" are usual and explainable.
My concept is based on a single essence and therefore it is non-alternative. For this concept, in practice, all the experimental data and facts are easily explained and there can be no anomalies or alternative explanations. Most explanations can be confirmed by simple calculations, which I have done very much, and they coincide with the experiment. Based on my concept, it can be done a lot of predictions.
In the generally accepted concept, the principle of plausibility of explanations is used, because there is no causality of the processes.
In my concept there is only a physical non-alternative explanation. I only point out that the experimental data coincide with the conclusions that were made or not. To my deep regret, in most cases, generally accepted conclusions are contrary to the conclusions of my concept. In such cases, I only pay attention to the fact that their conclusions may not be sufficiently substantiated, or my whole concept is erroneous.
Vladimir
-
#3159 by meberbs on 08 Apr, 2018 06:34
-
Dear meberbs, about GPS: you consider this to be one of the main arguments, but I'm afraid that you are mistaken.
No, my main argument is that nothing you have said makes sense and you don't have the slightest bit of experimental support on your side.Changes in the arrival time of electromagnetic waves, when moving the light propagation medium in a GPS system, practically do not affect the result of calculating the coordinates, because:
DGPS is used when very accurate position is desired, but the errors that 8km/s variation would produce are larger than standard GPS errors without DGPS corrections. Most receivers don't bother with DGPS anyway, so my statements stand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS
DGPS is used primarily to counter delays in the signal due to the ionosphere, which is why a relatively local reference point is used rather than global corrections. If there was a bias relative to a fixed direction in space not dependent on location on Earth, this would be easily seen in the data. Also, ionospheric delays are frequency dependent, so can be separated out from other error sources in that manner as well, one more reason that variations in the speed of light like you claim would have been noticed many times over.The method of calculating the coordinates in GPS, I emphasize - in my opinion, is a good example, similar to processing of measurement results in GP-B. Then in 2011 I received information about signal processing, in which all signals were deleted, if they were very different from what should be in theory. On their sincere belief, they were accidental.
You are accusing respected scientists of extremely unethical behavior without a shred of evidence to support your case. What you are basically saying here is that you will reject any data that contradicts you making up any excuses and accusing others of lying rather than accept that you are wrong. That is simply not scientific.
...
I do not impose my opinion on the results of measurements in GP-B for other people, I do not have time to pointlessly discuss this further. Maybe the GP-B results are corrected and there is everything needed data. One suspicion of falsification is enough for me for considing the results of GP-B hopelessly corrupted for my use as an argument.As you know, randomness is an unknowable regularity.
That is not a good definition for randomness. There are actually a couple different definitions depending on context, but what the context you provide after that has nothing to do with randomness.My concept is based on a single essence and therefore it is non-alternative.
This sentence literally has no meaning has far as I can discern. The words you used simply do not make any sense in context.For this concept, in practice, all the experimental data and facts are easily explained and there can be no anomalies or alternative explanations. Most explanations can be confirmed by simple calculations, which I have done very much, and they coincide with the experiment. Based on my concept, it can be done a lot of predictions.
Repeating something does not make it true. You have not done any relevant calculations of physical quantities, and none of the claims you are making are consistent with experiment.
(Note, I am aware you mentioned calculations of "frequencies of the basic elements of the physical vacuum medium" in your previous post, but that is not a properly defined concept to begin with, and not actually tied to any real experiment other than you handwaving that some experiments happen to use somewhat similar frequencies.)In my concept there is only a physical non-alternative explanation. I only point out that the experimental data coincide with the conclusions that were made or not. To my deep regret, in most cases, generally accepted conclusions are contrary to the conclusions of my concept. In such cases, I only pay attention to the fact that their conclusions may not be sufficiently substantiated, or my whole concept is erroneous.
Emphasis mine. Your concept is completely wrong, and no amount of you ignoring existing experimental data will change that.
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.