I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb. Observers don't disagree about that. I think what you are missing is that it isn't the conditions as observed by an arbitrary viewer that matters, each one has to translate to the proper reference frame which is the reference frame where the bomb is. Then they will all agree on the frequency.
All of the observers can use the Lorentz transformation and do the calculation in the rest frame of the bomb, and compare to the frequency of the the light in the rest frame of the bomb, but that is missing the point.
You can do the calculations in any inertial frame you want, and you will always get that the bomb trigger frequency is the same as the frequency of the light in that frame. Whether or not the bomb explodes is a relativistic invariant. The frequency of any given photon is not an invariant. Similarly, the physical size of the bomb, and frequency of reference oscillators inside the bomb, etc are also not invariant.
Maybe it's just semantics, but while it's true that the size of the bomb along the direction of relative motion will be different as measured by different observers in motion, each will know the actual size of the bomb, and it's designed trigger frequency in the bombs frame and all will agree. If I write that frequency in big numbers on the bomb, observers may see those numbers narrowed but they will still see the same numbers I wrote. Likewise, it only matters what the frequency of light is relative to the bomb, not to any other observer. If I designed the bomb to explode with light at 5000A and it explodes, I know that the light was 5000A in the bombs frame regardless of what I measured it as in another frame, for instance as 6000A. I wouldn't then say the bomb exploded with a designed 6000A trigger just because in some frame I measure 6000A. I would say I'm observing relativistic distortions. The statement "you will always get that the bomb trigger frequency is the same as the frequency of the light in that frame." seems misleading. As I said, if had a visual display on the bomb of the frequency as the bomb sees it, it would always be seen as the same number in all frames. I didn't say that frequency is invariant.
Posting this here as a heads up and a follow up to an earlier article posted here as well. This is written from a skeptical perspective and covers all the bases from that view point.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operableThe key thing for me in this article is NOT the alleged technology and implied physics, but rather the involvement of senior management within the US Navy (
Naval Aviation Enterprise Chief Technology Officer Dr. James Sheehy) who states the patents are in fact “operable” in the context of patent law. To me this is a clear tell that there is something very serious going on in the area of new physics for space flight. The article mentions videos showing high speed flying phenomena released by the US Navy and duly reported by the NY Times amongst others. The huge tell there was the fact that the videos were released with full chain of evidence documentation. Those videos literally could be used as legitimate evidence in a court of law. The chain of evidence documentation must have had approval for release by senior management of the Navy.So we essentially have official acknowledgement by the US Navy that new physics (of some sort) for aerospace applications exist and is in some sense operational. And they are being very sneaky about that acknowledgment.
Posting this here as a heads up and a follow up to an earlier article posted here as well. This is written from a skeptical perspective and covers all the bases from that view point.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operable
The key thing for me in this article is NOT the alleged technology and implied physics, but rather the involvement of senior management within the US Navy (Naval Aviation Enterprise Chief Technology Officer Dr. James Sheehy) who states the patents are in fact “operable” in the context of patent law.
To me this is a clear tell that there is something very serious going on in the area of new physics for space flight. The article mentions videos showing high speed flying phenomena released by the US Navy and duly reported by the NY Times amongst others. The huge tell there was the fact that the videos were released with full chain of evidence documentation. Those videos literally could be used as legitimate evidence in a court of law.
The chain of evidence documentation must have had approval for release by senior management of the Navy.
So we essentially have official acknowledgement by the US Navy that new physics (of some sort) for aerospace applications exist and is in some sense operational. And they are being very sneaky about that acknowledgment.
I like this quote in the article from Dr. Mark Gubrud, a University of North Carolina physicist, in regards to these patents:
"Pais's patents flow as an intimidating river of mumbo-jumbo that most trained physicists would recognize as nonsense, although many might simply disengage in confusion, and there are always some who might even be credulous. Of what, however, is hard to say, as it is not really clear what Pais is even claiming, apart from the room-temperature superconductor which, if it were true, would be huge news.
"Pais deploys fairly sophisticated babble to make this sound plausible to those who know what real physics sounds like, but don't understand much of it. Which is likely to include most patent examiners, journalists, and Pais's own enablers in the Navy."
And then in regards to why the Navy CTO would vouch for these patents:
"I don't know why Sheehy defended Pais's patents. I am certain it's not because they really make some kind of sense. I suspect the story is just one professional charlatan who has embedded himself in the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, plus one or a few supervisors he's managed to fool..."
From the same article:
Sheehy assures the examiner that he is “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity, and physics in general.” Note, too, the last line: Sheehy’s declaration was made with the knowledge that false statements to the USPTO are punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Sheehy’s letter was accompanied by a statement from Naval Aviation Enterprise attorney Mark Glut in which Glut states that “Sheehy states the invention is operable and enabled, thus overcoming both rejections."
So not only management but also a Navy lawyer. Also, Pais would not be directly supervised by the CTO but by the individual organization Pais was employed by. Large organization, different bureaucracies. In that kind of context folks sticking their necks out legally like this need significant motivation.
Also, where does “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity” fit into the typical skill set of Naval Aviation?
I didn't say that frequency is invariant.
You literally did. The wavelength and the frequency are related by wavelength*frequency = c, where c is the universal constant speed of light. You said:
I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb.
The wavelength in the rest frame would be fixed, but the definition of an invariant is something that does not change with reference frame. While everyone would agree what a digital read out would say, and would all agree that the on-board reference oscillators are calibrated correctly in the bomb's rest frame, the oscillators would not be calibrated correctly in any of the other frames due to time dilation. Time dilation is a very real effect, not just some illusion or semantics.
Again, the original point of my posts was that when dustinthewind says "hey look how much more energy gets transferred from a massless particle to something massive when the object is moving relativistically." The statement is not helpful, because it does not change the invariant ratio of photon momentum and energy, the photon just has different energy in different frames. And literally any such interaction can be viewed either in the rest frame or in a fast moving relativistic frame. Based on your posts, I don't think you disagree with this.
From the same article:
Sheehy assures the examiner that he is “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity, and physics in general.” Note, too, the last line: Sheehy’s declaration was made with the knowledge that false statements to the USPTO are punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Sheehy’s letter was accompanied by a statement from Naval Aviation Enterprise attorney Mark Glut in which Glut states that “Sheehy states the invention is operable and enabled, thus overcoming both rejections."
So not only management but also a Navy lawyer. Also, Pais would not be directly supervised by the CTO but by the individual organization Pais was employed by. Large organization, different bureaucracies. In that kind of context folks sticking their necks out legally like this need significant motivation.
Also, where does “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity” fit into the typical skill set of Naval Aviation?
Serious question: Does anyone know who to call to get Sheehy investigated for fraudulent statements?
Anyone who actually understands the definition of a superconductor and reads Pais' patent would understand that Pais' patent does not describe a superconductor. Also, none of the background he lists as evidence of his understanding of superconductivity actually has any direct relevance to superconductivity. Also, he falsely claims that the paper was peer reviewed, and the article points out that this was not true.
Note, I am not saying that he is guilty, maybe he just overestimates his own competence, and genuinely didn't know that the paper had not passed a peer review.
Also, where does “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity” fit into the typical skill set of Naval Aviation?
Unlike Salvatore Pais (who we know is a real person but has not released much information about him publicly), Dr James Sheehy's full resume is available online:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-sheehy-28437a8/He's been in NAVAIR for 34 years. CTO since 2008. Career began in 1985 in optics (human physiology, lenses, lasers, nonlinear materials). Graduated in these topics from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and PennState University. Mainly skilled in optics (obviously), aerospace R&D, systems engineering, program management. Could he be fooled that much by an employee with a nonsense patent AND a working prototype?! (remember he insisted with the word
"operable").
Notably, from his last position in the organization chart:
James Sheehy
Chief Technology Officer Naval Aviation Enterprise
April 2008 – Today
Main Location Patuxent River MD
Dr. Sheehy is the Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise. He is NAVAIR’s Chief Scientist / CTO and tech authority, and spokesperson for all basic, applied, advanced research and transition.
Dr. Sheehy was selected to the Senior Executive Service in November 2001 and was awarded the Presidential Rank Award for sustained superior accomplishments in 2007.
He began in 1985 conducting research in the areas of visual performance. In 1990, he became the head of the Vision Laboratory, directing / managing Naval & Joint Service programs. In 1995, he became NAVAIR Chief Scientist -research encompassed high / low light resolution, night vision devices, nonlinear optics and materials. He led 29 efforts with combined funding > 131M.
Selected in 2008 as the Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise encompassing all science and technology. As CTO he oversees and advocates the selection of S&T for the NAE and DCA for the Marine Corp. Dr. Sheehy’s demonstrated expertise in advancing and improving the full spectrum by identifying capability gaps and supporting S&T objectives (STOs) supported by near, mid, and far term quantifiable metrics embodied in the STO document. The document currently identifies10 capability gaps with 33 supporting STOs road mapped to programs of record with known funding and TRL levels. The portfolio currently includes 909 projects, ~3000 archived projects with a total investment in excess of 1B. Total Ownership Cost, Energy, and Rapid Response & People underlyall STOs.
He developed a Core Capability Document identifies the core capabilities of each department rated by projects, skill sets, and infrastructure - strategic, prioritized needs base document of critical areas. This moved the NAE from a reactive to a proactive organization that can clearly articulate needs and importance. Dr. Sheehy oversees workforce development adding > 60 advanced degrees per year to grow the critical skill sets.
I didn't say that frequency is invariant.
You literally did. The wavelength and the frequency are related by wavelength*frequency = c, where c is the universal constant speed of light. You said:
I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb.
The wavelength in the rest frame would be fixed, but the definition of an invariant is something that does not change with reference frame. While everyone would agree what a digital read out would say, and would all agree that the on-board reference oscillators are calibrated correctly in the bomb's rest frame, the oscillators would not be calibrated correctly in any of the other frames due to time dilation. Time dilation is a very real effect, not just some illusion or semantics.
Again, the original point of my posts was that when dustinthewind says "hey look how much more energy gets transferred from a massless particle to something massive when the object is moving relativistically." The statement is not helpful, because it does not change the invariant ratio of photon momentum and energy, the photon just has different energy in different frames. And literally any such interaction can be viewed either in the rest frame or in a fast moving relativistic frame. Based on your posts, I don't think you disagree with this.
The device was designed to trigger at a given frequency. That fact is as invariant as the rest mass of an electron is invariant and I mean it in the same sense. If I call it the "rest frequency" will that satisfy you? If I fly by you and measure your thickness as 1cm it would be unhelpful to discuss the biology of flat humans bodies because in reality your rest body is not flat.
I don't disagree with your comments on Dust's statement but still, it is not as important that "one can find" a reference frame to observe what you want as it is in that case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c. In that case the efficiency of energy transfer is near 100%. Consider a hypothetical (unpractical) case where the mirror vibrates against the beam to create relativistic relative velocities. Then the coupling would be very high.
I don't think we really disagree very much here but are emphasizing different points.
I don't disagree with your comments on Dust's statement but still, it is not as important that "one can find" a reference frame to observe what you want as it is in that case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c. In that case the efficiency of energy transfer is near 100%.
I don't get what you are even trying to say here. If you don't disagree with my original point, then this entire conversation seems to be just a waste of time. I also don't get what you mean by the "case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c." That case is
always the case, because there is always an inertial reference frame moving at near c relative to any given mirror, and a beam of light moves at c in every reference frame. Your example of a vibrating mirror is just entirely changing the question.
I don't disagree with your comments on Dust's statement but still, it is not as important that "one can find" a reference frame to observe what you want as it is in that case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c. In that case the efficiency of energy transfer is near 100%.
I don't get what you are even trying to say here. If you don't disagree with my original point, then this entire conversation seems to be just a waste of time. I also don't get what you mean by the "case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c." That case is always the case, because there is always an inertial reference frame moving at near c relative to any given mirror, and a beam of light moves at c in every reference frame. Your example of a vibrating mirror is just entirely changing the question.
Your point seems to be there is always a reference frame moving close to c wrt the mirror. True. But is there a laser beam always there too? There's also always a reference frame where my favorite pitchers pitches are well over 100mph. And where I'm as thin as I want to be. Unfortunately, I can't find a frame where I get rich as well.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Are you saying no photon recycling scheme is worth doing no matter what?
I am not saying anything like that. Recycling photon rockets would work as demonstrated in the shared video, as long as you can deal with beam focus over long distances. For practical purposes, it would be best to generally anchor them to the moon, but then you are limited to accelerating away from the moon, which still has uses. (There are also some other potential applications though such as using a large LEO satellite as the momentum sink.)
Dustinthewind is also talking about other things including claims that a single reflection photon rocket is somehow more efficient when the mirror is moving at relativistic speeds, despite the fact that this is only a matter of perspective, and you can get any answer you want for the energy transfer by shifting reference frames, since any mirror is moving relativistically in some reference frame.
the only time it's more efficient is when the object is moving toward the photon in which case the photon is more blue-shifted. This increases the photons effective mass. As you approach the speed of light the photon can continue increasing an effective Mass increasing the effective exchange of energy. I don't believe the Doppler effect has anything to do with the percentage of energy absorbed because it's just absorption and remission translation. I think it has to do with the effective masses involved.
If the object is traveling away from the approaching photon, the photon can be redshifted decreasing its effective mass and decreasing the effect of the push of the photon
the only time it's more efficient is when the object is moving toward the photon in which case the photon is more blue-shifted. This increases the photons effective mass. As you approach the speed of light the photon can continue increasing an effective Mass increasing the effective exchange of energy. I don't believe the Doppler effect has anything to do with the percentage of energy absorbed because it's just absorption and remission translation. I think it has to do with the effective masses involved.
If the object is traveling away from the approaching photon, the photon can be redshifted decreasing its effective mass and decreasing the effect of the push of the photon
Please read the post immediately above yours from Bob12345. Physics is independent of reference frame, so the same exact event can be described in a frame where the mirror is moving towards or away from the direction of the incoming photon. What actually happens is the same in all reference frames even though the energy numbers are different, so claiming "more efficiency" because the amount of energy transfer is different in a different frame does not make sense.
the only time it's more efficient is when the object is moving toward the photon in which case the photon is more blue-shifted. This increases the photons effective mass. As you approach the speed of light the photon can continue increasing an effective Mass increasing the effective exchange of energy. I don't believe the Doppler effect has anything to do with the percentage of energy absorbed because it's just absorption and remission translation. I think it has to do with the effective masses involved.
If the object is traveling away from the approaching photon, the photon can be redshifted decreasing its effective mass and decreasing the effect of the push of the photon
Please read the post immediately above yours from Bob12345. Physics is independent of reference frame, so the same exact event can be described in a frame where the mirror is moving towards or away from the direction of the incoming photon. What actually happens is the same in all reference frames even though the energy numbers are different, so claiming "more efficiency" because the amount of energy transfer is different in a different frame does not make sense.
I am not aware of claiming more efficiency because of some frame translation.
The only frame I am concerned with is the frame of the mirror, which observes an incoming photon having some effective mass. Everything else is just frame translation which should all agree with the
frame of the physicall interaction.
I am not aware of claiming more efficiency because of some frame translation.
If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal. I am also not convinced that warping of space time as propulsion is a dismal form of propulsion. In fact it is suspected asymmetrically orbiting black holes may effectively propel themselves out of their own host galaxy by asymmetrically emitted gravity waves and I was reading relativistic objects could absorb as much as 10% of the energy of a space time wave passing by, which is much greater than the % of energy absorbed from a photon impact at normal velocities.
Emphasis added. You claimed that relativistic objects have a high absorption ratio of energy, but the only special thing about a relativistic object is that you aren't looking at it in its rest frame, but in a frame where it is moving rapidly.
This is not the first time you have made this claim, and it is not the first time that I have explained that you are not making sense:
A wave exchanging 10% of its kinetic energy with a relativistic object is way more effecient. Its effecient because its the relativistic objects that emit and absorb effectively.
The only frame I am concerned with is the frame of the mirror, which observes an incoming photon having some effective mass. Everything else is just frame translation which should all agree with the
frame of the physicall interaction.
If you are only concerned about the rest frame, (which is a good frame to choose, since it usually makes calculations easier) then why do you keep insisting on discussing the energy transfer ratio for relativistic objects which by definition are objects that you are not observing from their rest frame?
I am not aware of claiming more efficiency because of some frame translation.
If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal. I am also not convinced that warping of space time as propulsion is a dismal form of propulsion. In fact it is suspected asymmetrically orbiting black holes may effectively propel themselves out of their own host galaxy by asymmetrically emitted gravity waves and I was reading relativistic objects could absorb as much as 10% of the energy of a space time wave passing by, which is much greater than the % of energy absorbed from a photon impact at normal velocities.
Emphasis added. You claimed that relativistic objects have a high absorption ratio of energy, but the only special thing about a relativistic object is that you aren't looking at it in its rest frame, but in a frame where it is moving rapidly.
This is not the first time you have made this claim, and it is not the first time that I have explained that you are not making sense:
A wave exchanging 10% of its kinetic energy with a relativistic object is way more effecient. Its effecient because its the relativistic objects that emit and absorb effectively.
The only frame I am concerned with is the frame of the mirror, which observes an incoming photon having some effective mass. Everything else is just frame translation which should all agree with the
frame of the physicall interaction.
If you are only concerned about the rest frame, (which is a good frame to choose, since it usually makes calculations easier) then why do you keep insisting on discussing the energy transfer ratio for relativistic objects which by definition are objects that you are not observing from their rest frame?
because as I already stated the quality of a cavity is necessary to increase the energy transfer process. The combustion engine won't work properly if you don't have high pressure increasing the quality by increasing atomic collisions. the recycling photon rocket won't work properly if you don't have enough recycled photon reflections.
The other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
because as I already stated the quality of a cavity is necessary to increase the energy transfer process. The combustion engine won't work properly if you don't have high pressure increasing the quality by increasing atomic collisions. the recycling photon rocket won't work properly if you don't have enough recycled photon reflections.
You are changing the subject and mixing unrelated things.
As I already stated there are major flaws in your combustion engine analogy, in part related to the fact that your descriptions of combustion engines have not been particularly accurate.
The real key with a recycling photon rocket is that you are pushing off of an external object, so it doesn't have any relevance for a self-contained cavity, which would be stuck thanks to equal and opposite forces.
None of what you just said actually addresses the part where you have repeatedly keep trying to compare very-much-not-rest-frame relativistic objects to the calculations done in the rest frame of an object.
The other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
Nothing in this quote makes any sense to me. Again, recycling photon rockets only work because there is a mirror on another object that they are pushing against. Black holes emitting radiation preferentially in one direction only gives them photon rocket equivalent levels of thrust, they just use absurdly huge amounts of energy. Nothing "recycling" about that. Plenty of electromagnetic systems radiate preferentially in one direction. The bit about "coupling and decoupling of space-time" still sounds like you are saying "wave a magic wand and temporarily change the laws of physics." To fix this, you need to explain what specifically you propose doing in terms of directions that someone would be able to follow.
because as I already stated the quality of a cavity is necessary to increase the energy transfer process. The combustion engine won't work properly if you don't have high pressure increasing the quality by increasing atomic collisions. the recycling photon rocket won't work properly if you don't have enough recycled photon reflections.
You are changing the subject and mixing unrelated things.
As I already stated there are major flaws in your combustion engine analogy, in part related to the fact that your descriptions of combustion engines have not been particularly accurate.
The real key with a recycling photon rocket is that you are pushing off of an external object, so it doesn't have any relevance for a self-contained cavity, which would be stuck thanks to equal and opposite forces.
None of what you just said actually addresses the part where you have repeatedly keep trying to compare very-much-not-rest-frame relativistic objects to the calculations done in the rest frame of an object.
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
The other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
Nothing in this quote makes any sense to me. Again, recycling photon rockets only work because there is a mirror on another object that they are pushing against. Black holes emitting radiation preferentially in one direction only gives them photon rocket equivalent levels of thrust, they just use absurdly huge amounts of energy. Nothing "recycling" about that. Plenty of electromagnetic systems radiate preferentially in one direction. The bit about "coupling and decoupling of space-time" still sounds like you are saying "wave a magic wand and temporarily change the laws of physics." To fix this, you need to explain what specifically you propose doing in terms of directions that someone would be able to follow.
Black holes rapidly slow down at the last leg. Why the sudden deceleration or rapid slowing? Because they speed up, and more rapidly accelerate. They suddenly couple better. It's like applying the clutch and increasing the change in effective mass via increased friction. The larger the mass you throw off the more efficient the exchange of kinetic energy (as we know from newtons cradle 100% at equal mass) - or with combustion engines if you can't change the effective mass of the molecules you increase the cycles, such that kinetic energy is gradually exchanged before its wasted as heat.
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
None of what you said here is even remotely coherent. It literally doesn't even mean anything to claim that effective mass is space-time. That isn't even wrong, it is just word salad.
The other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
Nothing in this quote makes any sense to me. Again, recycling photon rockets only work because there is a mirror on another object that they are pushing against. Black holes emitting radiation preferentially in one direction only gives them photon rocket equivalent levels of thrust, they just use absurdly huge amounts of energy. Nothing "recycling" about that. Plenty of electromagnetic systems radiate preferentially in one direction. The bit about "coupling and decoupling of space-time" still sounds like you are saying "wave a magic wand and temporarily change the laws of physics." To fix this, you need to explain what specifically you propose doing in terms of directions that someone would be able to follow.
Black holes rapidly slow down at the last leg. Why the sudden deceleration or rapid slowing? Because they speed up, and more rapidly accelerate. They suddenly couple better. It's like applying the clutch and increasing the change in effective mass via increased friction. The larger the mass you throw off the more efficient the exchange of kinetic energy (as we know from newtons cradle 100% at equal mass) - or with combustion engines if you can't change the effective mass of the molecules you increase the cycles, such that kinetic energy is gradually exchanged before its wasted as heat.
And again, when asked to explain one thing you change the subject. Now you are making nonsensical claims about black holes suddenly slowing down, and making up your own gibberish explanation for why that happens rather than acknowledging that the source you originally provided that describes the deceleration of a newly merged black hole also describes how and why it happens.
https://physics.aps.org/story/v25/st22It is not because someone is going around with a magic wand changing coupling factors, it is because the newly merged black hole is still asymmetric shortly after it forms, and it emits additional gravitational waves which will tend to be in the opposite direction from the initial set of gravitational waves from the merger. You are the one who originally cited those results, but you immediately started making claims contrary to the results you cited. This is extremely inappropriate academic behavior.
I am not going to address the details of your combustion engine analogy, because it has no relevance whatsoever to this situation.
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
You seem to be doing your best to discourage research into the area of propellantless drive.
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
None of what you said here is even remotely coherent. It literally doesn't even mean anything to claim that effective mass is space-time. That isn't even wrong, it is just word salad.
...
You have already claimed yourself they throw off solar masses of energy in the form of space time waves. That effective mass/energy is stored in the warping of space time between two separated black holes. That stored energy has effective mass. They throw off their effective mass and velocity they would gain via the Lorentz factor because they lose energy/mass generating space time waves. That's why they merge.
Do you really think assymetrically emitted gravity waves could propell a black hole system out of its host Galaxy or even slow them selves down with something that has no effective mass?
