-
#1080 by Star One on 23 May, 2019 15:54
-
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
You talk as if improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope for this kind of definitive answer was easily done. When in fact this likely to be order of years if not decades, if we are talking about the addition of orbital radio telescopes. -
#1081 by RonM on 23 May, 2019 16:55
-
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
You talk as if improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope for this kind of definitive answer was easily done. When in fact this likely to be order of years if not decades, if we are talking about the addition of orbital radio telescopes.
I didn't say it would be easy. It could take a decade with funding. But it would take less time than observing wide binaries for decades only to discover they're not really wide binaries (not a test of GR).
Anyway, what does all this have to do with Shawyer EM drives? Looks to me like people are grasping at straws to find a theory that justifies EM drives. More experimental data based on Shawyer's design is what people need. If it works, that's great. If it doesn't work, then it's time to move on. -
#1082 by meberbs on 23 May, 2019 18:40
-
Meant to respond to this sooner, I got distracted by other posts.
likely again muddied the initial fundamental issues... Momentum is transferred between the resonant field and the induced field(s) in the frustum walls. This seems clear since the EM fields associated with the frustum walls is induced by an interaction with the resonating EM field within the frustum. However, unlike classical systems, only one massive object is involved, the frustum itself.
When discussing conservation and the emDrive, it it best to define your system such that the device is powered by a battery and that the battery and RF generator are both strapped to the frustum this way nothing is coming in from "outside" the system. The fields within the cavity also count as part of the system. You can use these definitions of "system" for both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
Since the EM radiation that ultimately generates the resonant field is introduced from outside the frustum, it does not seem to be a closed system in the classical since we expect when speaking of CoM. Instead it seems more appropriate to evaluate the system as a whole within the context of conservation of energy (CoE), which would include the external EM source, and any transfer of momentum would be included as one component, of CoE.A second question raised in the linked post, was whether an EM field has any “inherent” momentum potential greater than that associated with the momentum of the individual photons/EM waves that the field is generated/composed from/of? My initial thought is that the momentum potential within the resonant field is limited to that basic momentum, just mentioned.
It is limited in that way. You can setup a system where there is energy and momentum in the fields (as determined by the Poynting vector), but all of the fields involved are static. An example is a ring of wire with a current in it generating a magnetic field, and immersed in a uniform electric field. Current is the same everywhere in the wire, but parts of the wire have fewer charge carriers moving faster, which yields a different momentum due to relativity. The momentum in the fields precisely cancels that. You can view this situation as radiation being emitted by part of the system and absorbed by the other part to keep everything balanced. Even in this case where the interactions are basically local, and the fields are steady state, the energy and momentum relationships in the fields still work.
To answer one other point from your previous post (a few paragraphs skipped for brevity)My focus on a need for higher power tests and even reverting to testing earlier frustum designs with the improved test beds, of the day, is grounded on two questions, I don’t feel have been resolved.
First of all you keep talking about the "inertial mass of the device" determining a limiting force required. There is no such restriction in the better tests that have been performed. Torsion balances do not have static friction, and the force measurement will yield the same result and sensitivity even if you change the mass. The force measurement is done by comparison to the torque generated by the torsion wire, which shows up as displacement. Mass would only limit sensitivity if the measurement was based on direct measurement of acceleration. For the experiments performed, the mass only comes into play as a second order effect by changing the period of oscillation, settling time and other properties of the setup, that do not directly factor into sensitivity.
One is that, should the potential momentum available for transfer be limited to the inherent momentum associated with any EM photons/waves contributing to the internal resonant EM field, there is a possibility that the there would be insufficient total momentum potential available, from low power systems to overcome the inherent inertial resistance of the device’s mass and inherent initial resistance of the test bed. Think of it like this were we dealing with a photon rocket what would be the minimum power/force required to overcome the inherent inertia of the mass of the device itself? Higher power tests provide a greater possible momentum potential to begin with.
...
It does not matter how sensitive your test equipment is, if the device you are testing does not or cannot generate sufficient force to overcome the involved inertial mass and inherent baseline resistance of the test equipment.
Higher powered tests have a greater potential of producing a more significant interaction, with little or no change in the total inertial mass of the device.
Since that is a non-factor, the only actual question is the sensitivity of the device in terms of force/power. Higher power tests increase error sources and also make it more difficult to eliminate errors from attached cables by using a self-contained system with battery power. The most recent experiments have done very well on this metric, easily enough to show that the original claims such as those from Shawyer were inaccurate. -
#1083 by mandrewa on 23 May, 2019 18:52
-
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
You talk as if improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope for this kind of definitive answer was easily done. When in fact this likely to be order of years if not decades, if we are talking about the addition of orbital radio telescopes.
I didn't say it would be easy. It could take a decade with funding. But it would take less time than observing wide binaries for decades only to discover they're not really wide binaries (not a test of GR).
We have 71 'binaries', where we know the position of all 142 stars, and their velocities. For these 71 'binaries,' and I've put the word binary in quotes, not because I think there is any reason to doubt that they are binaries, but because it doesn't matter whether actually are or not. They are still a test of our theory of gravity, even if they are somehow not really binaries.
We still have to explain why they are moving as they are moving.
For all 71 of these instances the stars in question are well separated from anything else. We know they are exerting a gravitational force on each other. Unless there is some mass we cannot see, everything else is far enough away that their gravitational impact on the motions of each of these instances should be minor.
Out of the 71 instances, or actually it's 81 instances because Hernandez et al. have added an additional 10 instances where we don't know the radial velocities of the stars. I'll assume that there is good reason for this and that they know what they are doing, for now.
But out of the 81 instances, 44 are behaving like Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. But for all of these 44, the real or apparent distance between the pairs is less than 7000 AU.
All 37 pairs whose real or apparent distance is more than 7000 AU apart are diverging from what Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. And they are diverging in a consistent way.
Something seems to be going on. As Gaia continues to take measurements we will likely get even more 'binaries' that can be compared.
-
#1084 by meberbs on 23 May, 2019 20:25
-
We have 71 'binaries', where we know the position of all 142 stars, and their velocities. For these 71 'binaries,' and I've put the word binary in quotes, not because I think there is any reason to doubt that they are binaries, but because it doesn't matter whether actually are or not. They are still a test of our theory of gravity, even if they are somehow not really binaries.
We only know the locations and velocities of the stars (some components of the velocities at least). There is only a meaningful relationship between velocity and separation if the stars are bound. Otherwise, gravitational theory can only predict acceleration which is not within our capability to meaningfully measure on any practical time scale. The separations between the stars being considered are measured in light years, such that the separation between the sun and the Alpha Centauri system would fit into the relevant section of the plots (around 1.3 parsecs) Other gravitational influences certainly need to be considered at that scale.
We still have to explain why they are moving as they are moving.
For all 71 of these instances the stars in question are well separated from anything else. We know they are exerting a gravitational force on each other. Unless there is some mass we cannot see, everything else is far enough away that their gravitational impact on the motions of each of these instances should be minor.But out of the 81 instances, 44 are behaving like Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. But for all of these 44, the real or apparent distance between the pairs is less than 7000 AU.
El-Brady showed that GR does in fact predict something different to happen as the separation increases, because components of the velocity that can be measured accurately enough are measured in different planes for each star, breaking naive assumptions that the velocities are measured in the same plane. Corrections for this can only be done with sufficiently accurate measurements of the 3rd velocity component, but El-Brady showed that at a minimum the measured values are consistent with a GR based model that accounts for the actual way measurements are performed.
All 37 pairs whose real or apparent distance is more than 7000 AU apart are diverging from what Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. And they are diverging in a consistent way.
Something seems to be going on. As Gaia continues to take measurements we will likely get even more 'binaries' that can be compared. -
#1085 by mandrewa on 23 May, 2019 23:08
-
We have 71 'binaries', where we know the position of all 142 stars, and their velocities. For these 71 'binaries,' and I've put the word binary in quotes, not because I think there is any reason to doubt that they are binaries, but because it doesn't matter whether actually are or not. They are still a test of our theory of gravity, even if they are somehow not really binaries.
We still have to explain why they are moving as they are moving.
For all 71 of these instances the stars in question are well separated from anything else. We know they are exerting a gravitational force on each other. Unless there is some mass we cannot see, everything else is far enough away that their gravitational impact on the motions of each of these instances should be minor.
We only know the locations and velocities of the stars (some components of the velocities at least). There is only a meaningful relationship between velocity and separation if the stars are bound. Otherwise, gravitational theory can only predict acceleration which is not within our capability to meaningfully measure on any practical time scale. The separations between the stars being considered are measured in light years, such that the separation between the sun and the Alpha Centauri system would fit into the relevant section of the plots (around 1.3 parsecs) Other gravitational influences certainly need to be considered at that scale.
I've overstated the case. If we imagine the stars didn't exist one hundred years ago, and then ninety-nine years ago, we put them in their current locations with their current velocities, then in that context the arrangement wouldn't reveal much about gravity.
But if the stars have been in existence for millions of years, and they've been experiencing gravity over that span of time, then it's a struggle to imagine how they can be in these locations and with these velocities at this point in time without being binaries. It seems intuitively spectacularly unlikely.
But the trouble is that saying you can't imagine how something can occur isn't proof that it isn't possible.But out of the 81 instances, 44 are behaving like Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. But for all of these 44, the real or apparent distance between the pairs is less than 7000 AU.
El-Brady showed that GR does in fact predict something different to happen as the separation increases, because components of the velocity that can be measured accurately enough are measured in different planes for each star, breaking naive assumptions that the velocities are measured in the same plane. Corrections for this can only be done with sufficiently accurate measurements of the 3rd velocity component, but El-Brady showed that at a minimum the measured values are consistent with a GR based model that accounts for the actual way measurements are performed.
All 37 pairs whose real or apparent distance is more than 7000 AU apart are diverging from what Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. And they are diverging in a consistent way.
Something seems to be going on. As Gaia continues to take measurements we will likely get even more 'binaries' that can be compared.
This is the Kareem Al-Badry paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.13397.pdf
This is the Hernandez et al. paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.08696.pdf
If we look at figure 3 in the Al-Badry paper, four different panels are shown for different scenarios that were modeled. Now I have a lot of questions about the wide binary simulation in the Al-Badry paper, but I'm pretty confident that at least in this much I've got it right, that these four panels in figure 3 show the results of four different runs of the simulation under four different assumed states of knowledge about the stars.
In the bottom panel we see a simulated binary run where it's assumed the viewer from earth has no information on the radial velocity of these stars. From Hernandez et al. paper (2019), we know only 10 of the systems might fit this condition (I need to verify that they truly have no radial information on these stars, or if they just meant that the radial information was incomplete.) But in any event the bottom panel would only apply to at most 10 of the 81 systems the Hernandez et al. have chosen to focus on.
In figure 2 of Al-Badry paper they superimpose the data from the 81 systems from the Hernandez et al. paper (2019) on the simulated binary run which assumed no radial data. It fits quite well. That seems quite impressive, and if they have done the simulation correctly it explains the data from 10 of the 81 systems. (Or actually really I do have questions even then, but for now I'll skip all of that.)
But it leaves the question of why the Al-Badry paper didn't superimpose the data from the Hernandez paper on the other three simulated binary runs revealed in figure 3. The top panel in figure 3 is a simulated binary run where we know the radial velocities and the radial velocity data has a standard deviation of 0.2 km/s. This would likely apply to some subset of the Hernandez data. Why isn't it plotted?
The second panel down from the top in figure 3 is a simulated binary run where we know the radial velocities and the radial velocity data has a standard deviation of 2.0 km/s. This would likely apply to a signficant subset of the Hernandez data. Why isn't it plotted?
The third panel down from the top of figure 3 is a simulated binary run where radial velocity is known for one of the stars but not the other. I don't know how many systems out of the 81 this applies to, if any, but it surely applies to some of the other suspected 760 binaries that Hernandez et al. currently have data on.
-
#1086 by meberbs on 24 May, 2019 00:42
-
I've overstated the case. If we imagine the stars didn't exist one hundred years ago, and then ninety-nine years ago, we put them in their current locations with their current velocities, then in that context the arrangement wouldn't reveal much about gravity.
What are you trying to say here? The last sentence here that you stated is a great counterargument to the paragraph immediately preceding it. Intuition is completely useless when determining the expected distribution of stars with some given relative proximity. There are models that predict it, but also lists of reasons why they could be wrong. The El-Badry paper lists reasons that there can be stars near each other with not particularly different velocities even if unbound.
But if the stars have been in existence for millions of years, and they've been experiencing gravity over that span of time, then it's a struggle to imagine how they can be in these locations and with these velocities at this point in time without being binaries. It seems intuitively spectacularly unlikely.
But the trouble is that saying you can't imagine how something can occur isn't proof that it isn't possible.
If you want to claim that there is a way to use this data to invalidate GR, you are going to have to show what it is, and so far you have failed to do so. You have swung from the previous post where you claimed even if the stars aren't bound there would be a way to use the data to disprove GR, to your current post where you now insist the stars must be bound because "intuition" despite the fact that based on the stated probability cutoff of the models used to pick out these pairs, it is expected that several of them would actually not be bound pairs.If we look at figure 3 in the Al-Badry paper, four different panels are shown for different scenarios that were modeled. Now I have a lot of questions about the wide binary simulation in the Al-Badry paper, but I'm pretty confident that at least in this much I've got it right, that these four panels in figure 3 show the results of four different runs of the simulation under four different assumed states of knowledge about the stars.
The Hernandez paper uses 1D velocity in its plots, its results are based on comparing to a model that makes an incorrect assumption about the velocities that are used. Since no correction was made in the Hernandez paper for this effect, and it is easy to simply not do the correction, then there is no problem just comparing the data in that way. It at least shows that there is no obvious inconsistency in the more accurate part of the velocity data with GR, when using a model that correctly represents how the data was measured.
In the bottom panel we see a simulated binary run where it's assumed the viewer from earth has no information on the radial velocity of these stars. From Hernandez et al. paper (2019), we know only 10 of the systems might fit this condition (I need to verify that they truly have no radial information on these stars, or if they just meant that the radial information was incomplete.) But in any event the bottom panel would only apply to at most 10 of the 81 systems the Hernandez et al. have chosen to focus on.In figure 2 of Al-Badry paper they superimpose the data from the 81 systems from the Hernandez et al. paper (2019) on the simulated binary run which assumed no radial data. It fits quite well. That seems quite impressive, and if they have done the simulation correctly it explains the data from 10 of the 81 systems. (Or actually really I do have questions even then, but for now I'll skip all of that.)
No, it explains the data of all of them, because they are all plotted with the same assumption, which is the same for both the actual data and the model, unlike the Hernandez paper.But it leaves the question of why the Al-Badry paper didn't superimpose the data from the Hernandez paper on the other three simulated binary runs revealed in figure 3. The top panel in figure 3 is a simulated binary run where we know the radial velocities and the radial velocity data has a standard deviation of 0.2 km/s. This would likely apply to some subset of the Hernandez data. Why isn't it plotted?
As the various plots show, the expected shape changes with error magnitude, so each star would need to be compared to a different curve. Given the size of the distributions, this does not seem like it would provide much insight, the other plots are based on binning a bunch of stars together so that a meaningful plot can result in part by hiding the noisy errors on individual measurements. -
#1087 by mandrewa on 24 May, 2019 01:34
-
I've overstated the case. If we imagine the stars didn't exist one hundred years ago, and then ninety-nine years ago, we put them in their current locations with their current velocities, then in that context the arrangement wouldn't reveal much about gravity.
What are you trying to say here? The last sentence here that you stated is a great counterargument to the paragraph immediately preceding it. Intuition is completely useless when determining the expected distribution of stars with some given relative proximity. There are models that predict it, but also lists of reasons why they could be wrong. The El-Badry paper lists reasons that there can be stars near each other with not particularly different velocities even if unbound.
But if the stars have been in existence for millions of years, and they've been experiencing gravity over that span of time, then it's a struggle to imagine how they can be in these locations and with these velocities at this point in time without being binaries. It seems intuitively spectacularly unlikely.
But the trouble is that saying you can't imagine how something can occur isn't proof that it isn't possible.
I know intuition is an unsatisfactory argument, but think about what is implied if in fact the stars are not bound. That means that two stars have wandered relatively close together with rather similar speeds.
That's not particularly unlikely but then it goes further. For the systems where we have the full velocity data, not only do we have similar speeds but both velocities are in the same plane. Now that's getting unlikely. And it's especially unlikely to find this in 30 or so systems that are all relatively nearby at the same time.
But then it gets worse, it's not just pairs of stars that all have similar speeds, velocities in the same plane, and are near to us, but on top of that and most unlikely of all, their masses, directions, and speeds all add up to systems that are all almost but not quite doing what a pair of bound stars would be doing under GR.
Intuitively that sounds spectacularly unlikely. But trying to quantify the odds of this occurring is probably quite difficult, so I think the reference to less than 10% chance for each not being bound in the Hernandez paper is not an assessment of the actual odds, but instead an assertion that they have proved it's less than a 10% chance, although in fact they believe the odds are far, far less than that. -
#1088 by mandrewa on 24 May, 2019 01:53
-
If we look at figure 3 in the Al-Badry paper, four different panels are shown for different scenarios that were modeled. Now I have a lot of questions about the wide binary simulation in the Al-Badry paper, but I'm pretty confident that at least in this much I've got it right, that these four panels in figure 3 show the results of four different runs of the simulation under four different assumed states of knowledge about the stars.
The Hernandez paper uses 1D velocity in its plots, its results are based on comparing to a model that makes an incorrect assumption about the velocities that are used. Since no correction was made in the Hernandez paper for this effect, and it is easy to simply not do the correction, then there is no problem just comparing the data in that way. It at least shows that there is no obvious inconsistency in the more accurate part of the velocity data with GR, when using a model that correctly represents how the data was measured.
In the bottom panel we see a simulated binary run where it's assumed the viewer from earth has no information on the radial velocity of these stars. From Hernandez et al. paper (2019), we know only 10 of the systems might fit this condition (I need to verify that they truly have no radial information on these stars, or if they just meant that the radial information was incomplete.) But in any event the bottom panel would only apply to at most 10 of the 81 systems the Hernandez et al. have chosen to focus on.
I do not understand this assertion. Figure 2 is the same as the bottom panel in figure 3, except Figure 2 has the data from the Hernandez et al. paper superimposed.
The bottom panel of the four panels in figure 3 is labeled "no RVs", where RV means 'radial velocity' and therefore this is a simulation run under the assumption that we are only seeing the apparent motions and don't know the real velocity or real distance between the stars.
Do you disagree with that? Or do you mean that if we just ignore the radial data on the grounds that the radial data is not nearly as good as the other data, then it reconciles with GR?
If it's the latter case, remember that I wondered awhile ago if that was going on, and asserted that if El-Badry was implicitly assuming the radial data was bad, then he needed to explicitly state that he was doing that. -
#1089 by meberbs on 24 May, 2019 06:07
-
I know intuition is an unsatisfactory argument, but think about what is implied if in fact the stars are not bound. That means that two stars have wandered relatively close together with rather similar speeds.
Your post after this is distinctly lacking in actual supporting numbers or anything to indicate that you have any comprehension of things like what the density of stars is in the galaxy and what this implies about the likelihoods involved. It also lacks any indication that you have actually read the discussion section of the El-Brady paper that I have referenced multiple times because it gives actual reasons that unbound stars with similar velocities could be near each other.For the systems where we have the full velocity data, not only do we have similar speeds but both velocities are in the same plane.
In the same plane to what accuracy? given the uncertainties in the radial data, this assertion is just unsupportable.But trying to quantify the odds of this occurring is probably quite difficult, so I think the reference to less than 10% chance for each not being bound in the Hernandez paper is not an assessment of the actual odds, but instead an assertion that they have proved it's less than a 10% chance, although in fact they believe the odds are far, far less than that.
No, the 10% is calculated by a model that could be wrong in either direction, and again, El-Badry provides reasons that the odds of being unbound could be significantly higher.
Have you just not read any of my posts? I don't know how to respond to this, because I have already explained this using every variation of phrasing I could think of. The data matches with expectations of GR based on these results, but there is not enough high quality information to eliminate any possibility that it also matches an alternative theory.The Hernandez paper uses 1D velocity in its plots, its results are based on comparing to a model that makes an incorrect assumption about the velocities that are used. Since no correction was made in the Hernandez paper for this effect, and it is easy to simply not do the correction, then there is no problem just comparing the data in that way. It at least shows that there is no obvious inconsistency in the more accurate part of the velocity data with GR, when using a model that correctly represents how the data was measured.
I do not understand this assertion. Figure 2 is the same as the bottom panel in figure 3, except Figure 2 has the data from the Hernandez et al. paper superimposed.
The bottom panel of the four panels in figure 3 is labeled "no RVs", where RV means 'radial velocity' and therefore this is a simulation run under the assumption that we are only seeing the apparent motions and don't know the real velocity or real distance between the stars.
Do you disagree with that? Or do you mean that if we just ignore the radial data on the grounds that the radial data is not nearly as good as the other data, then it reconciles with GR?
You can look at the Hernandez paper and see what the uncertainties are on the raw data. They clearly preclude comparisons of the full 3D velocities because just the error in that one component would cause problems. El-Badry shows that the added error is smaller if you just use it as a correction factor to put the velocities in the same plane, however even for the best case of both components < 0.2 km/s this mostly, but not completely removes the projection errors. Many of the data points from the Hernandez paper clearly do not meet this condition, so it is not clear a statistically meaningful comparison can be done.If it's the latter case, remember that I wondered awhile ago if that was going on, and asserted that if El-Badry was implicitly assuming the radial data was bad, then he needed to explicitly state that he was doing that.
I have to wonder whether you have actually read the paper at all, or if you are just making things up as you go. This is not the first time you have requested more information on something that is already stated in the paper (Try reading section 2.2 again.) Although, he doesn't refer to it as an assumption for the simple reason that it is a fact.
-
#1090 by Monomorphic on 28 May, 2019 01:10
-
I wanted to give everyone an update on my recent progress. I am now the owner of a "Fullerton style" torsional pendulum!
I have to admit, this has been a fun side project over the last couple of weeks. My old hanging-wire torsional pendulum was enormous and took up a large portion of my basement. In preparation for moving to our new home in a few months, I disassembled the old torsional pendulum. At that time, I also began designing a "Fullerton style" torsional pendulum that wouldn't take up nearly as much space and I can keep on a shelf.
I use the same brand C-Flex bearings Fullerton uses, as well as a magnetic damping system, and liquid metal contacts. I even replicated the vibration damping bracket Woodward uses to hold the MET with all the neoprene washers. All parts are 3D printed except the extruded aluminum square tube, flexure bearings, nuts and screws, and magnets.
Next steps are to get the laser displacement sensor working and build the new draft enclosure...
-
#1091 by Bob Woods on 28 May, 2019 19:31
-
Behold, the MonoFullerDulum.
Maybe you can sell them on E-bay. -
#1092 by TheTraveller on 02 Jun, 2019 10:35
-
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
-
#1093 by dustinthewind on 02 Jun, 2019 14:48
-
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
If you have them I would be posting data, experimental specs, diagrams, proof that it works, so that a working hypothesis could be worked out to understand why there is thrust if there is any. Ignorance isn't bliss. -
#1094 by OnlyMe on 02 Jun, 2019 19:58
-
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
There has been far too many claims of the sort represented in that diagram, with no credible supporting data/documentation.
It is almost as if some, are posting, even sometimes boasting, based on the psychological model, that if you say a thing often enough and loud enough, it must be true... or at least that you can convince others that it is true.
Let us see some repeatable experimental data confirming even a single newton of useable thrust... Without even that it is as if we are discussing science fiction, rather than anything remotely associated with science. -
#1095 by Bob Woods on 03 Jun, 2019 05:44
-
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Phil, you've had plenty of opportunity to provide data; to provide proof. You haven't done so.
No matter what anyone's personal "beliefs" are, science relies on data to define a proof. Belief without data is more akin to religion than science.
This is a place for science. -
#1096 by Star One on 03 Jun, 2019 07:44
-
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Phil, you've had plenty of opportunity to provide data; to provide proof. You haven't done so.
No matter what anyone's personal "beliefs" are, science relies on data to define a proof. Belief without data is more akin to religion than science.
This is a place for science.
It comes to something when recently we’ve seen more info and data on UFO sightings than the EM drive from this poster.
-
#1097 by bad_astra on 03 Jun, 2019 16:20
-
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
please leave the crackpot stuff for other forums. I have found these Em drive threads interesting, but this kind of thing is something else. It has a place, just not here. Unless there is something veritable to show at that time. If not, these teasers are for your own ego.
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
Weren't you going to publish the results of your own experiment? You were quite adamant about that and not all that long ago. -
#1098 by The_Optimist on 05 Jun, 2019 11:59
-
Interesting article....
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf
-
#1099 by Notsosureofit on 05 Jun, 2019 13:23
-
Interesting article....
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf
For what it's worth....
http://leonov-leonovstheories.blogspot.com/
