-
#1300 by Ricvil on 04 Aug, 2019 15:02
-
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.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.
...
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?
A stored negative effective density of energy? -
#1301 by meberbs on 04 Aug, 2019 15:35
-
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.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.
...
In GR you have to be extra careful with the GR equivalent of gravitational potential energy, it does not work the same way as other forms of energy, and lumping all forms of mass-energy into it is wrong, and equating the special relativity kinetic energy contribution with space-time is even more wrong.
You keep making adding assertions like "That effective mass/energy is stored in the warping of space time between two separated black holes." It is not so simple as that. For a rotating system of 2 black holes before they merge, they have rotational kinetic energy, which unlike the linear kinetic energy of a system viewed from an arbitrary reference frame, the rotational kinetic energy has a minimum value even in the center of energy frame (relativistic equivalent of center of mass rest frame.) Any energy radiated away comes from energy like this that all frames can agree on. In moving frames, the radiated gravitational waves would be Doppler shifted by the frame change, changing their energy, and at the same time, the different initial speed of the black hole change the delta kinetic energy needed, by an amount that matches the difference in energy of the gravitational waves, maintaining consistency like any other transfer of momentum and energy does when you change frames.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?
"Effective mass" is a term that you keep using in various ways, and doesn't seem to have a consistent defintion from you. Mass-energy is mass-energy. In some frames, an object is moving faster than in others, therefore in those frames it has more energy, which means more mass. This is a real thing, not just some "effective" value, but it is frame dependent. In the rest frame of an object, the value of its mass-energy in that frame is called the rest mass. Massless particles exist that do not have any rest mass at all, but they still have energy, because they always move at the speed of light. There is no such thing as a rest frame for massless particles. Things therefore can slow themselves down by emitting massless particles, and when they do, they use real energy that comes from their existing mass-energy. -
#1302 by JonathanD on 05 Aug, 2019 14:30
-
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.
Doesn't make sense, unless:
"With all this in mind, it's certainly possible that these patents are part of some ongoing information campaign designed to make America’s competitors question what types of black budget research is currently underway at NAWCAD and other research organizations."
-
#1303 by RotoSequence on 05 Aug, 2019 14:35
-
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.
As things stand, perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved. Every physical description of a propellant-less propulsion scheme either violates it directly, or contradicts known experimental results. No one has managed to avoid this, and no one has demonstrated a device that irrefutably produces thrust. After seven years of this on NSF alone, can you blame him? -
#1304 by Bob012345 on 05 Aug, 2019 17:09
-
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.
Doesn't make sense, unless:
"With all this in mind, it's certainly possible that these patents are part of some ongoing information campaign designed to make America’s competitors question what types of black budget research is currently underway at NAWCAD and other research organizations."
Or it could just be a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. No one in the Navy hierarchy is willing to challenge the inventor's extremely non-conventional ideas. The High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator patent describes a kind of "Death Star" technology capable of destroying an entire planet like Earth "which may be achieved with the concept at hand". The bigger question for me is why, even with some pressure, the USPTO is still allowing them? -
#1305 by trm14 on 05 Aug, 2019 19:46
-
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.
Doesn't make sense, unless:
"With all this in mind, it's certainly possible that these patents are part of some ongoing information campaign designed to make America’s competitors question what types of black budget research is currently underway at NAWCAD and other research organizations."
That patent seems just too silly to be useful as disinformation. -
#1306 by dustinthewind on 08 Aug, 2019 14:19
-
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.
As things stand, perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved. Every physical description of a propellant-less propulsion scheme either violates it directly, or contradicts known experimental results. No one has managed to avoid this, and no one has demonstrated a device that irrefutably produces thrust. After seven years of this on NSF alone, can you blame him?
Well, I suspect that as with the recycled photon thruster, the newtons/kilowatt would go up as you increase the disparity in effective mass of the electrons (assymetric), and the more energy you can dissipate from the photons as thrust before they are exhausted as heat. The more energy you can store the larger the disparity in effective mass. You would be looking for a change in frequency, and that change in frequency would be efficiency of thrust conversion. Similar to escaping gas exhausting from a combustion cylinder being cooler, via efficiency, but also requiring more thermal energy (stored energy in the cavity) to increase torque or thrust.
The recycled photon thruster has better than photon thrust.
There might be some mechanism which reduces effective thrust when moving near the speed of light with respect to the local vacuum which you are pushing off, which is moving away at near the speed of light at near c velocity.
-
#1307 by meberbs on 08 Aug, 2019 15:06
-
Well, I suspect that as with the recycled photon thruster, the newtons/kilowatt would go up as you increase the disparity in effective mass of the electrons (assymetric), and the more energy you can dissipate from the photons as thrust before they are exhausted as heat. The more energy you can store the larger the disparity in effective mass. You would be looking for a change in frequency, and that change in frequency would be efficiency of thrust conversion. Similar to escaping gas exhausting from a combustion cylinder being cooler, via efficiency, but also requiring more thermal energy (stored energy in the cavity) to increase torque or thrust.
Again, you are waving around the phrase "effective mass" like some kind of magic variable that you can change at will just by wishing it. Please take a look at my previous post where I explained the actual terms related to mass that have real definitions.The recycled photon thruster has better than photon thrust.
As has been stated before, this is because it is just using the photons as an intermediary to push off of another object that has non-zero rest mass. Please stop looking for magic explanations for this. Nothing about that allows for a closed cavity containing electrodynamic waves to accelerate arbitrarily in one direction (the topic of this thread.)There might be some mechanism which reduces effective thrust when moving near the speed of light with respect to the local vacuum which you are pushing off, which is moving away at near the speed of light at near c velocity.
No, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity. -
#1308 by Bob012345 on 09 Aug, 2019 16:40
-
There might be some mechanism which reduces effective thrust when moving near the speed of light with respect to the local vacuum which you are pushing off, which is moving away at near the speed of light at near c velocity.
No, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity.
The local vacuum is presumed to be always the same regardless of relative speed to some other frame. But in practice there is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which appears pretty uniform after local redshifts and blueshifts are corrected out of the data so we know there seems to be a unique CMBR frame (this is not a violation of Special Relativity). Earth frame isn't too fast wrt CMBR but that implies a ship launched from this frame traveling at relativistic speeds would see quite an anisotropic CMBR. But I'm not proposing a CMBR drive or anything.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background -
#1309 by mikegem on 10 Aug, 2019 03:07
-
[/quote]
No, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity.
[/quote]
My apologies if my question is too far off-topic.
Regarding moving at high speed relative to the vacuum - that would certainly seem to violate relativity.
However, the dynamical Casimir effect (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/) would seem to depend on velocity relative to the vacuum, specifically the speed of the SQUID electromagnetic mirror relative to its immediate local vacuum.If velocity is zero, no photons are seen. If velocity is significant (~ 5% C) the investigators find microwave photons.
This experimental result confuses me regarding absence of preferred frames, etc. Can you elucidate? Thank you. -
#1310 by TheTraveller on 11 Aug, 2019 02:20
-
To consider:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdfQuoteThe most important point to be made, is that to measure force, the cavity must experience acceleration. In a fully restrained cavity, thrust and reaction force cancel out.
Cavity static = no thrust.
Cavity accelerated via initial external force providing big to small acceleration = thrust generation.
Why?
Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.
Not aware of any EmDrive replicator that has read this note, understood what it reveals & adopted their test rig to provide the external initial acceleration force. -
#1311 by meberbs on 11 Aug, 2019 05:04
-
Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.
For a change you are touching on a real effect. If a cavity is accelerating there will be a differential Doppler shift, however, the net result of this is for more radiation pressure to be applied to the cavity wall on the "back" of the device, which means the additional radiation pressure is in the opposite direction as the acceleration. This means that the only thing this force does is resist externally applied accelerations. Also, since this is a real effect, its magnitude can be determined. It is obviously proportional to the amount of acceleration the cavity is experiencing, and it turns out that it is simply equivalent to increasing the cavity's mass by an amount equal to E/c^2 where E is the total electromagnetic energy stored in the cavity. The specific value is not a coincidence, because it simply represents the fact that Energy and mass are equivalent, and if an external force is pushing on the cavity, it also has to push on the photons too. This is extremely small, and completely undetectable in any reasonable experiment.Not aware of any EmDrive replicator that has read this note, understood what it reveals & adopted their test rig to provide the external initial acceleration force.
As described above this effect cannot logically even produce a useful force, so there is nothing to account for. Also, among all of the times you have made this or similar claims, you have never once specified a numerical threshold for what this means, despite being asked to repeatedly. As it stands this is just a made up rule, and you and Shawyer seem to just arbitrarily apply it to experiments where you don't like the result. -
#1312 by JohnFornaro on 11 Aug, 2019 14:08
-
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.
As things stand, perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved. Every physical description of a propellant-less propulsion scheme either violates it directly, or contradicts known experimental results. No one has managed to avoid this, and no one has demonstrated a device that irrefutably produces thrust. After seven years of this on NSF alone, can you blame him?
Are you asking me if I "blame" dustinthewind for discouraging research into the area of propellantless drive?
I'm not sure where the idea of "blame" gets inserted into this context. Put another way, which is less kind, my comment means that I suggest dustinthewind's continued babbling of agglomerations of words, are, as meberbs points out, a "word salad", devoid of meaning, and that his comments tend to discredit the propellantless drive inquiry.None of what [dustinthewind] 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.
Dustinthewind is responsible for his own words.
As to your idea that "perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved", I would say that, regarding propellantless drive [PPD], it is rather that the conservation of momentum is "most important". What the PPD folks are trying to do is demonstrate that it is possible to convert electricity into forward momentum. Mankind already has one method of doing this; the electric motor connected to a wheel resting on a surface in a massive gravitational field where friction exists. Momentum is conserved by pushing on the road surface. In space, there isn't an equivalent "road surface". Because momentum and inertia are related and not fully explained by current science, some of the PPD folks are trying to find something to push against.
And, after seven years here at least, they have found nothing. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the PPD folks do not have a theory either, much less a working machine.
-
#1313 by dustinthewind on 11 Aug, 2019 14:14
-
Quote
No, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity.
My apologies if my question is too far off-topic.
Regarding moving at high speed relative to the vacuum - that would certainly seem to violate relativity.
However, the dynamical Casimir effect (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/) would seem to depend on velocity relative to the vacuum, specifically the speed of the SQUID electromagnetic mirror relative to its immediate local vacuum.If velocity is zero, no photons are seen. If velocity is significant (~ 5% C) the investigators find microwave photons.
This experimental result confuses me regarding absence of preferred frames, etc. Can you elucidate? Thank you.
I don't think I am the only one that thinks there is an effective velocity with respect to space time in a gravity well. Watch this video and turn it to 1:04 where they suddenly see a newmetricgrid appear. He says it took him a year to understand why the newmetricgrid appeared in the video. He says essentially space time is flowing into the black hole beyond the horizon faster than light at 1:05:54. Basically space rotates into time and time into space. This is the curvature in the drawing below where the time vector is vertical and space horizontal.
https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/videos/black-holes-and-holographic-worlds/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqpGbxc6I4gIVDZ-fCh1_8gbpEAAYASAAEgLWC_D_BwE
actually use this vdieo link here:
It also resolves the twin paradox in relativity as to which twin ages slower and which twin ages faster. Often they will say its the twin that accelerates that ages slower but you see the universe exists at generally low velocity with respect to c. The matter in the universe defines space time. If you accelerate you eventually have high velocity with respect to the universe and perceive the universe as distorted.
We know we have velocity w.r.t. the universe by the dipole Doppler shift of the CMB.
-
#1314 by Bob012345 on 11 Aug, 2019 15:44
-
[
And, after seven years here at least, they have found nothing. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the PPD folks do not have a theory either, much less a working machine.
Untrue on both counts. There is evidence published and there have been several theories put forth. You or I may not agree with them or we may dispute the evidence put forth but to say neither has happened is to deny facts. -
#1315 by meberbs on 11 Aug, 2019 17:34
-
I don't think I am the only one that thinks there is an effective velocity with respect to space time in a gravity well.
You seem to be confused, there is an effective velocity relative to a gravity well, because in GR gravity is not modeled as a force, but as bending of space-time.Watch this video and turn it to 1:04 where they suddenly see a new metric appear. He says it took him a year to understand why the new metric appeared in the video.
Please don't misquote him. No "new metric" appears in the video. The metric is the general description of space-time itself, there is only 1 of it, though it can be written different ways in different coordinate systems, frames etc. He said it took him "a year to understand this." "This" in that sentence is not equal to "a new metric appears" because that is not what happens.
As he explains in the video, he painted magic lines on the event horizon of the black hole. Once you get past the event horizon, it is above you instead of below you, so it appears blue as it is blue shifted by falling down. You also see an illusory image of these lines below you due to the light from those lines that has already fallen in to the black hole and you are falling towards.He says essentially space time is flowing into the black hole beyond the horizon faster than light at 1:05:54. Basically space rotates into time and time into space. This is the curvature in the drawing below where the time vector is vertical and space horizontal.
Please listen to the dialogue with the other panelists around then, it is not as simple as what you are saying, which is basically because the words in the English language are not well suited to describe what is happening. What seems to be the key point to correct your misunderstanding of this is that everything he describes is relative to the black hole. It is described as moving spacetime, because that is how GR describes gravity rather than as a force, which is why gravity even affects things like light. Gravity has specific well defined effects, not just arbitrary ones, trying to claim that a photon rocket behaves differently depending on speed relative to a "local vacuum" still makes no sense if you are not inside a black hole.The matter in the universe defines space time. If you accelerate you eventually have high velocity with respect to the universe and perceive the universe as distorted.
Again, your statements here don't make sense, the universe is not all moving at constant velocity, and no matter how much you accelerate, there will be some neutrino moving even faster than you and from its perspective, you are still travelling in the opposite direction as it. You use the correct word in the last sentence I quoted here, "perceive" This is all a matter of perception, and therefore does not actually do anything useful.We know we have velocity w.r.t. the universe by the dipole Doppler shift of the CMB.
There is nothing special about the CMB frame, except for whether or not you see the CMB as asymmetric, (which implies you feel a very tiny force from it when not in the CMB frame.) -
#1316 by TheTraveller on 12 Aug, 2019 04:29
-
Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.
For a change you are touching on a real effect. If a cavity is accelerating there will be a differential Doppler shift, however, the net result of this is for more radiation pressure to be applied to the cavity wall on the "back" of the device, which means the additional radiation pressure is in the opposite direction as the acceleration.
Yes there is differential Doppler shift generated during acceleration. Glad we agree.
Now consider there may be say 100k transits & reflections of the travelling waves. What is the effect?
As for the force, you might try rethinking what would happen. You know, no isolated force. Needs to be an action, force on the big end, and reaction, small end moving opposite to big end force. -
#1317 by meberbs on 12 Aug, 2019 05:31
-
I already answered this in the previous message. The number of reflections translates from the the power input to the total energy stored in the cavity, and as I stated, the force is proportional to the energy stored in the cavity. There is no additional amplification beyond that, since the effect is simply due to the change in velocity of the cavity in the time it takes the light to propagate from one end of the cavity to another.Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.
For a change you are touching on a real effect. If a cavity is accelerating there will be a differential Doppler shift, however, the net result of this is for more radiation pressure to be applied to the cavity wall on the "back" of the device, which means the additional radiation pressure is in the opposite direction as the acceleration.
Yes there is differential Doppler shift generated during acceleration. Glad we agree.
Now consider there may be say 100k transits & reflections of the travelling waves. What is the effect?As for the force, you might try rethinking what would happen. You know, no isolated force. Needs to be an action, force on the big end, and reaction, small end moving opposite to big end force.
As usual, you are misusing the words action and reaction. Please go look up a tutorial on introductory physics, since you clearly need more help on this than is reasonable to type in a post here. For the short version of what you have wrong:
The photons apply a force to the large end of the cavity (ignoring the part applied to the small end and sidewalls that partially cancels with this), and the reaction force is the big end applying a force on the photons in the opposite direction. Things accelerate in the direction of the force applied to them. (For photons, they don't accelerate in a literal sense, but their momentum still increases) In no case ever does applying a force to something make it accelerate in the opposite direction. -
#1318 by TheTraveller on 12 Aug, 2019 23:45
-
Roger explains EmDrive Doppler shift during acceleration.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
-
#1319 by meberbs on 13 Aug, 2019 00:12
-
Roger explains EmDrive Doppler shift during acceleration.
And as usual, Shawyer can't keep his sign conventions straight, and contradicts himself, saying that in "motor" mode (the one that supposedly produces useful thrust) the acceleration of the cavity causes a Doppler shift reducing stored energy and thrust, despite other times he and you claim that acceleration is necessary for there to be thrust. If the net effect of the Doppler shift is to decrease thrust (which it is to a negligible extent despite the multiple issues in Shawyer's explanation), then it is nonsensical to claim that there must be pre-existing acceleration for thrust to be generated. Honestly not worth me going into specifics since you simply ignored my previous post, and Shawyer uses no real equations anyway.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
