I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
That doesn't sound fair at all. I didn't even get to see your rebuttal before it was removed. So, let's start over.
You state in your paper that "The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
That's fine for circular accelerators, but what about linear accelerators? Since their particles do not travel along circular trajectories, what would make QI less apparent for linear accelerators?
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
SLAC is listed as 50 GeV and LHC up to 6.5 TeV. Yes, that's a big difference, but SLAC accelerates electrons while LHC accelerates protons and lead ions. Both push their particles to nearly the speed of light, so one would think we would see the effects of QI in the data.
If you look at Dr. McCulloch's paper you'll see he uses the radius of the LHC to show why QI would not be seen in the LHC's data. That's fine, but that explanation won't work for a linear accelerator such as SLAC.
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
SLAC is listed as 50 GeV and LHC up to 6.5 TeV. Yes, that's a big difference, but SLAC accelerates electrons while LHC accelerates protons and lead ions. Both push their particles to nearly the speed of light, so one would think we would see the effects of QI in the data.
If you look at Dr. McCulloch's paper you'll see he uses the radius of the LHC to show why QI would not be seen in the LHC's data. That's fine, but that explanation won't work for a linear accelerator such as SLAC.
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
I wonder if people think that discussion of that could be better served in a new thread topic? If so perhaps someone with physics education background could start it and introduce the topic with maybe its abstract and any relevant discussion points. I have seen there are other FTL threads open too such as:
Janus Cosmological Model & FTL travel (and how to introduce negative mass in GR) New
Started
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.0Theoretical FTL
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13542.0Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
SLAC is listed as 50 GeV and LHC up to 6.5 TeV. Yes, that's a big difference, but SLAC accelerates electrons while LHC accelerates protons and lead ions. Both push their particles to nearly the speed of light, so one would think we would see the effects of QI in the data.
If you look at Dr. McCulloch's paper you'll see he uses the radius of the LHC to show why QI would not be seen in the LHC's data. That's fine, but that explanation won't work for a linear accelerator such as SLAC.
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
I wonder if people think that discussion of that could be better served in a new thread topic? If so perhaps someone with physics education background could start it and introduce the topic with maybe its abstract and any relevant discussion points. I have seen there are other FTL threads open too such as:
Janus Cosmological Model & FTL travel (and how to introduce negative mass in GR) New
Started
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.0
Theoretical FTL
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13542.0
Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0
Here's a new thread on it:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.0People may want to discuss it there and suggest good/bad science/physics in it.
We've talked about making microstructured EMdrives over a few years. I think the first one was something to do with flying cars in red, I'm not going to dig up the post. Anyway, I've taken a stab at it, mostly just blundering and failing. I think I have a good idea for once, and maybe one doable at home. I want to create hundreds of millions of EMdrives, instead of that copper can I and others built, which I also consider as more blundering, at least on my part...but that's how we learn. I was trying to find a ready made product to repurpose as a 3d photonic crystal, and none were found, so I tried to make a 3d one, by filling a 2d photonic crystal with 3d natural ones, like filling a straw with little natural resonators (and that part wasn't exactly my idea, I got it from a book and someone made a video about it) but it was opaque and I feel dumb for trying. I found this slide in this presentation linked to below about artificial opals, opals are natural 3d photonic crystals. This might be doable. I don't want the cavities to be spherical though, that's another challenge to overcome, I want an egg shape, big end and small end like an EMdrive but not necessarily flat ends, but small enough and the right dimensions, and packed together very compactly but with the right pitch between them, and just use visible light from an affordable laser.
At 42:00
Any thoughts on this US patent? I only ask because it has been assigned to the US Navy and has the standard caption that Federal research patents have. It discusses using EM for thrust but in a totally different arrangement than the EM drive; seems to be playing two cavities?
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/4c/43/62c585ccc936cc/US10144532.pdf
That or similar from the same inventor has been discussed on this thread before. His claims generally indicate that he has no clue what he is talking about. (For example in one paper/patent he describes a so-called superconductor that does not have the basic properties required of a superconductor.)
Well it looks like a common theme that people who have made inverse opals are doing (though there's a bunch of other ways too) is you get a bunch of polystyrene or acrylic spheres from places like this (1) and you get them to settle into a nicely ordered configuration from a colloidal, and then you infiltrate the gaps around the spheres with a higher index material, and then you either dissolve out or burn out the spheres to leave the voids. Greatly simplified.
I don't want a bunch of spheres leftover though, I want truncated cones or similar, that's the tough part so far.
We metalize and coat replicated microstructures on a regular basis. What sort of composition and dimensions are you thinking about ? There may be something similar already available....you never know.
Is the EMdrive cavity producing anapoles along it's conical surface?
Is the EMdrive cavity producing anapoles along it's conical surface?
It certainly seems to me the shapes of the fields are toroidal so I believe this to be a reasonable conjecture. I proposed to SeaShells about a year ago that we should consider the Helmholtz toroid equations...not an analysis I've seen done...and I've not had any time to try to do it myself...
Well, this cavity has a very interesting design.
It envolves a inversion under a sphere and a inversion under a torus.
The result is the ratio between the radius of big end and small end plates appears to be very close to the ratio between the first two zeros of the derivative of zero order bessel function of first kind.
PS: Edited
Well, this cavity has a very interesting design.
It envolves a inversion under a sphere and a inversion under a torus.
The result is the ratio between the radius of big end and small end plates appears to be very close to the ratio between the first two zeros of the derivative of zero order bessel function of first kind.
PS: Edited
I and others have asked you multiple times why you keep posting sketches that look like a cross section of an emDrive with random circles superimposed. I have yet to see a coherent response to that question. You aren't actually successfully communicating anything with these images.
Also, you continue using terms such as "inversion under a sphere" that have no discernible meaning. Inversion of what? What sphere? etc.
Well, this cavity has a very interesting design.
It envolves a inversion under a sphere and a inversion under a torus.
The result is the ratio between the radius of big end and small end plates appears to be very close to the ratio between the first two zeros of the derivative of zero order bessel function of first kind.
PS: Edited
I and others have asked you multiple times why you keep posting sketches that look like a cross section of an emDrive with random circles superimposed. I have yet to see a coherent response to that question. You aren't actually successfully communicating anything with these images.
Also, you continue using terms such as "inversion under a sphere" that have no discernible meaning. Inversion of what? What sphere? etc.
Meberbs,
About "inversion" , in 2D , I think this link will help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversive_geometryBecause of axis of symmetry of cavity, under a rotation about this axis, circle cross sections can represent spheres or torus, and lines can be plates, cones or cylinders.
Why this all geometry?
Because the shape of cavity defines the boundary conditions.
With the cavity under resonance, the shape of the boundary conditions will define the shape of constant phase surfaces of modes inside cavity, and it's relation with energy and momentum, phase and group velocity.
This transformations can be composed with conformal and duality transformations , and show a preferencial direction of propagation inside cavity.
But I am not ready to explain yet.
Meberbs,
About "inversion" , in 2D , I think this link will help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversive_geometry
That link helps in that it clarifies that you are just throwing out random terms that do not apply or assist with anything relevant.
Because of axis of symmetry of cavity, under a rotation about this axis, circle cross sections can represent spheres or torus, and lines can be plates, cones or cylinders.
Except all of the extra lines and circles you are drawing are not real, you are just drawing them in effectively random spots, which I can only assume are chosen because you find them aesthetically pleasing in some way. There are no spherical or circular toroidal shapes present in an emDrive cavity.
Why this all geometry?
Because the shape of cavity defines the boundary conditions.
This statement is correct, it is the shape of the cavity, not the shape of all the extra lines and circles you draw.
With the cavity under resonance, the shape of the boundary conditions will define the shape of constant phase surfaces of modes inside cavity, and it's relation with energy and momentum, phase and group velocity.
This transformations can be composed with conformal and duality transformations , and show a preferencial direction of propagation inside cavity.
That amounts to a bunch of word salad, ending with a completely false conclusion.
The mode shape is determined by Maxwell's equations in free space constrained by the boundary conditions of the cavity. Inversive geometry does not help solve this problem, nor does it provide any insight to this problem in any way.
But I am not ready to explain yet.
If you have nothing to say, please don't waste anyone's time by posting random pictures that you refuse to explain.