-
#500 by meberbs on 20 Sep, 2018 23:47
-
You are contradicting yourself here. You have not made comments about the content of what I said (example: you accused me of making assumptions, and did not state what the supposed assumption was.). As you say "not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it." You are making it clear with that statement that your do not care about and have not addressed the content. Your statement that you have addressed content of my posts is wrong, which is obvious from reading the full chain. (Otherwise, please quote which post of yours discussed the Nirvana fallacy)It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.
Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content.
(For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)
I have repeatedly made comments as to what you said but for some reason you don’t seem able to grasp this and just keep accusing me of not addressing your content. Maybe if I said I am not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it would be clearer. It’s the tone of your post I have an issue with really, surely that must be clear by now?
This whole issue has taken up far too much time on this thread because we keep seeming to be talking past each other.
Of course you haven't pointed anything wrong with the way I said things in my original post either. When someone presents a fallacy the appropriate response is to point out what the fallacy is and why it is wrong. That is what I did. You have provided no alternative way to say what I wrote, and I have already pointed out that I used some words to soften the statement as well. You claim there was a problem with my tone. It appears to me that you just superimposed a distasteful tone on my words in your head, because you did not like what I was saying.
Here is an (actual) example of how you could address content of my posts if your problem is with how I said something:QuoteYou are the one who has been rude in this situation and I will explain why:
Your first post accused me of not answering the question, I responded by saying "Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made."
Your response to that was to simply repeat the accusation "Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand." with no explanation of what is wrong with my answer, you did not address or even acknowledge the fact that I had given an answer and then further explained why what I provided was the only answer possible. Repeating an accusation without even acknowledging the response is rude. If you are going to disagree with something at least provide a specific response that goes further than "you're wrong."
You then went through the same sequence of accusing me of something (making an assumption) me explaining that I did no such thing and why, and then you repeating the accusation as if I had not provided any counterargument. On further prompting you have failed to state what the assumption is, since I already explained why what you originally said was an assumption was not one.
Note that even though my problem is with how you said things (you were ignoring what you were responding to) I was still able to respond in a specific way that directly addressed the content of what you said. -
#501 by rq3 on 21 Sep, 2018 01:23
-
You are contradicting yourself here. You have not made comments about the content of what I said (example: you accused me of making assumptions, and did not state what the supposed assumption was.). As you say "not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it." You are making it clear with that statement that your do not care about and have not addressed the content. Your statement that you have addressed content of my posts is wrong, which is obvious from reading the full chain. (Otherwise, please quote which post of yours discussed the Nirvana fallacy)It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.
Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content.
(For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)
I have repeatedly made comments as to what you said but for some reason you don’t seem able to grasp this and just keep accusing me of not addressing your content. Maybe if I said I am not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it would be clearer. It’s the tone of your post I have an issue with really, surely that must be clear by now?
This whole issue has taken up far too much time on this thread because we keep seeming to be talking past each other.
Of course you haven't pointed anything wrong with the way I said things in my original post either. When someone presents a fallacy the appropriate response is to point out what the fallacy is and why it is wrong. That is what I did. You have provided no alternative way to say what I wrote, and I have already pointed out that I used some words to soften the statement as well. You claim there was a problem with my tone. It appears to me that you just superimposed a distasteful tone on my words in your head, because you did not like what I was saying.
Here is an (actual) example of how you could address content of my posts if your problem is with how I said something:QuoteYou are the one who has been rude in this situation and I will explain why:
Your first post accused me of not answering the question, I responded by saying "Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made."
Your response to that was to simply repeat the accusation "Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand." with no explanation of what is wrong with my answer, you did not address or even acknowledge the fact that I had given an answer and then further explained why what I provided was the only answer possible. Repeating an accusation without even acknowledging the response is rude. If you are going to disagree with something at least provide a specific response that goes further than "you're wrong."
You then went through the same sequence of accusing me of something (making an assumption) me explaining that I did no such thing and why, and then you repeating the accusation as if I had not provided any counterargument. On further prompting you have failed to state what the assumption is, since I already explained why what you originally said was an assumption was not one.
Note that even though my problem is with how you said things (you were ignoring what you were responding to) I was still able to respond in a specific way that directly addressed the content of what you said.
For the love of God, science, physics, what have you, I beg the moderators to forbid this kind of post.
The point here is whether Roger Shawyer's microwave excited frustrum can provide thrust. Period.
The posts should consist of experimental design, and THEN the results of those designs, and THEN discussions of why those designs may or may not be valid.
-
#502 by spupeng7 on 21 Sep, 2018 02:11
-
flux_capacitor wrote (Thread 9)
Ricvil,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"(...)
Dirac's equations plead in favor of the existence of discrete magnetic charges and magnetic monopoles. Observation does not. What is reality?
My understanding of the magnetic field is incomplete, since there is no electric charge in movement in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, although there is a magnetic and electric fields associated with the wave. I admit I don't understand the physical meaning of an EM wave, I have always seen this as a mathematical trick and not a true description of reality, especially as there is no æther as a medium for the propagation of the wave and its EM field. Except EM waves are really propagating in vacuum, so… I'll stop there, because I can't add more to the debate. But you get the idea."
(...)
flux_capacitor is making an important argument here. IMHO the only real things in the universe are positive and negative charges, everything else is the consequence of exchange particles and direct interaction. Exchange particles have no extension in time because they travel at the speed of light. I can find no difficulty with an explanation for all magnetic phenomena in these terms. Do Dirac's magnetic monopoles really add anything constructive to the debate? -
#503 by spupeng7 on 21 Sep, 2018 02:26
-
(...)
rq3,It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.
(...)
For the love of God, science, physics, what have you, I beg the moderators to forbid this kind of post.
The point here is whether Roger Shawyer's microwave excited frustrum can provide thrust. Period.
The posts should consist of experimental design, and THEN the results of those designs, and THEN discussions of why those designs may or may not be valid.
I agree but at the same time I must admit that meberbs's persistently acusitory style has helped me focus on some of the inadequacies in my own explanations. Which has been useful for me, even if it makes for some truly dry reading... -
#504 by spupeng7 on 21 Sep, 2018 02:41
-
Scientists receive $1.3 million to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft:
We should all congratulate Mike McCulloch, this is a monumental achievement and a big step for the emdrive generally. There are several contributors to this forum who deserve to be funded, lets hope that Mike is in the first few of many.
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft
Good on you Mike, keep up the good work trying to make sense of this. -
#505 by Ricvil on 21 Sep, 2018 04:10
-
It is a very intricate question about inertia and causality.flux_capacitor wrote (Thread 9)
Ricvil,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"(...)
Dirac's equations plead in favor of the existence of discrete magnetic charges and magnetic monopoles. Observation does not. What is reality?
My understanding of the magnetic field is incomplete, since there is no electric charge in movement in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, although there is a magnetic and electric fields associated with the wave. I admit I don't understand the physical meaning of an EM wave, I have always seen this as a mathematical trick and not a true description of reality, especially as there is no æther as a medium for the propagation of the wave and its EM field. Except EM waves are really propagating in vacuum, so… I'll stop there, because I can't add more to the debate. But you get the idea."
(...)
flux_capacitor is making an important argument here. IMHO the only real things in the universe are positive and negative charges, everything else is the consequence of exchange particles and direct interaction. Exchange particles have no extension in time because they travel at the speed of light. I can find no difficulty with an explanation for all magnetic phenomena in these terms. Do Dirac's magnetic monopoles really add anything constructive to the debate?
I think I can put this way: Your necessity of a complex time, is equivalent to a necessity to add an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field.
Now I have a question.
How do you define causality without using "unreal" electromagnetic frontwaves?
-
#506 by Peter Lauwer on 21 Sep, 2018 11:21
-
Scientists receive $1.3 million to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft:
We should all congratulate Mike McCulloch, this is a monumental achievement and a big step for the emdrive generally. There are several contributors to this forum who deserve to be funded, lets hope that Mike is in the first few of many.
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft
Good on you Mike, keep up the good work trying to make sense of this.
Ehhumm...
It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. So that would mean McCulloch's theory predicts an effect which doesn't exist.
His model gives a formula which reasonably predicts the rotational velocities of galaxies. I think that's all of his success up to now. And there are a dozen or so other theories which also reasonably predict these curves. So that doesn't prove a lot.
What McCulloch does very well, is yelling that his theory is superior to General Relativity and there are quite some laymen who tend to believe him.
He has some basic ideas which are interesting, and probably worth further investigating. But until some basic features are (theoretically) explored, like solar system dynamics (perihelium shift of Mercury and so on), it is grotesque to claim that his theory is superior.
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all. -
#507 by flux_capacitor on 21 Sep, 2018 12:04
-
Scientists receive $1.3 million to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft:
We should all congratulate Mike McCulloch, this is a monumental achievement and a big step for the emdrive generally. There are several contributors to this forum who deserve to be funded, lets hope that Mike is in the first few of many.
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft
Good on you Mike, keep up the good work trying to make sense of this.
Ehhumm... It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. So that would mean McCulloch's theory predicts an effect which doesn't exist.
His model gives a formula which reasonably predicts the rotational velocities of galaxies. I think that's all of his success up to now. And there are a dozen or so other theories which also reasonably predict these curves. So that doesn't prove a lot.
What McCulloch does very well, is yelling that his theory is superior to General Relativity and there are quite some laymen who tend to believe him.
He has some basic ideas which are interesting, and probably worth further investigating. But until some basic features are (theoretically) explored, like solar system dynamics (perihelium shift of Mercury and so on), it is grotesque to claim that his theory is superior.
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all.
I concur. There are thousand of gravity theories out there besides the mainstream concordance model, but only a very few of them are in agreement with observational data. Worse, for some unknown reason, the media seem to favor only some of them (thus to the detriment of others) whereas they have already been falsified.
For example, Milgrom's MoND (Modified Newtonian dynamics) keeps being presented in every astrophysics and cosmology popularized journals. The best achievement of MoND is that it explains the flat rotation curves of galaxies without dark matter, but it has to knock Newton's law up for that, which is said to be correct locally in 1/r² but changes in 1/r "at some distance" (not justified, except to agree with galactic observations, in some ad hoc arrangement). But never it is told in these journals that the theory (which is not even relativistic) has a modified law that does not work anymore at even greater distances, to account for the high residual speed in globular clusters. Therefore MoND doesn't work, period. But it continues to be advertised everywhere.
The opposite with Verlinde's emergent (or "entropic") gravity: unlike MoND it can explain the anomaly of such big clusters… but do do not work for small ones (yet those which exhibit the greatest anomaly…) and does not agree with the observed galaxy rotation curves! (cf. Lelli 2017 in MNRAS). It cannot explain the accelerating cosmic expansion neither. Yet it has been recently popularized everywhere in the news!
Why the scientific world (scientists and specialized journalists) keeps advertising theories that do not agree with solid observations is beyond me.
Quantized inertia seems to work well with any observations, especially anomalies. But McCulloch will have to prove his peculiar predictions with dedicated experiments, because the Unruh effect (which is something related to Hawking radiation in quantum mechanics) is not something that has been proven to really exist, and even if it is real, it is not clear that such tiny radiation can push on matter and be the origin of inertia the way McCulloch pretends it is. -
#508 by Monomorphic on 21 Sep, 2018 12:27
-
Ehhumm...
It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. So that would mean McCulloch's theory predicts an effect which doesn't exist.
His model gives a formula which reasonably predicts the rotational velocities of galaxies. I think that's all of his success up to now. And there are a dozen or so other theories which also reasonably predict these curves. So that doesn't prove a lot.
What McCulloch does very well, is yelling that his theory is superior to General Relativity and there are quite some laymen who tend to believe him.
He has some basic ideas which are interesting, and probably worth further investigating. But until some basic features are (theoretically) explored, like solar system dynamics (perihelium shift of Mercury and so on), it is grotesque to claim that his theory is superior.
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all.
I had a conversation with Mike Fiddy, who is the DARPA program manager in charge of McCulloch's project, during lunch at the advanced propulsion workshop. Let's just say it is highly unlikely that they will receive the entire grant due to expected milestones.
Dr. Rodal and I had the same conversation, where we said that McCulloch was going to have to find other experiments to predict with his theory since the Emdrive and Mach effect were coming up short. It's not good if your theory predicts something that isn't real.
-
#509 by Peter Lauwer on 21 Sep, 2018 12:38
-
Ehhumm... It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. ...
This doesn't mean I will stop with my experiments.
I will need the torsion balance for another experiment anyway. And I want to further test the method of contactless coupling of microwave power which I developed [https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.04999.pdf].
I had hoped to finish my experiments before the EmDrive was 'officially declared not to work', but got seriously delayed in the past year.
Microwave stuff is too interesting to give up this excuse to use it.
-
#510 by Monomorphic on 21 Sep, 2018 12:54
-
I'm not quite ready to put the nail in the coffin yet, but in my opinion we are getting close and should have the issue resolved soon. There are a few things about the Tajmar and US NAVY Emdrive experiments that we need to talk about.
1. Neither Tajmar's group nor the US Navy confirmed mode shape with IR camera.
2. Tajmar's group was still testing that mode where they claimed a Q of ~250,000+. They had not tested any of the other modes but said that was coming.
3. Tajmar did show a Smith Chart, but the circle was on the opposite side. It was on the short circuit side of the chart instead of the open circuit side. I'm not sure what effect this has (perhaps X-Ray can chime in) but it should be noted.
As for me, I would still like to test other modes. I would also like to remove the copper gaskets and test with and without PTFE. To do so, I will require a wide-band amplifier. So I will begin looking for an affordable new amplifier. It should be a simple matter for me to place some chicken wire over the draft enclosure and do some testing outside the ISM band. -
#511 by flux_capacitor on 21 Sep, 2018 13:37
-
Dr. Rodal and I had the same conversation, where we said that McCulloch was going to have to find other experiments to predict with his theory since the Emdrive and Mach effect were coming up short. It's not good if your theory predicts something that isn't real.
I am aware of three different ongoing experiments to test quantized inertia in the lab, different than asymmetric microwave cavities (aka EmDrive) or vibrating piezoelectric discs (aka MEGA drive):
- Travis Shane Taylor's EmDrive based on lasers, will be tested by Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden, Germany
- "LEMdrive" based on a light-loop in a fiber optic whose working principle is explained at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html by José Luis Pérez-Díaz at the University of Alcalá, Spain
- Franck McBecker's imFaB-thruster in Germany, a wide-area capacitor tuned to discharge (independent effort that may be artefacts or be related to QI)
Mike McCulloch calls "horizon drives" all thrusters that would use quantized inertia for propellantless propulsion:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/09/horizon-drives-quantum-rockets.html -
#512 by meberbs on 21 Sep, 2018 14:05
-
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all.
For the curious, here is a link to some of the predictions he has made.
An important thing to point out is that there is no "pioneer anomaly" anymore. It has been accepted as fully solved to be due to asymmetric thermal radiation since 2012. For some reason, certain circles of people interested in alternative gravity theories are seemingly unaware of this important news years later. (That link is from 2016, and both references the pioneer anomaly and predicts variations in it that don't exist anyway.)
Also, it looks like non-existence of the emDrive effect would possibly not disprove the quantized inertia theory, since the statement on that page has the caveat of "if photons have inertia mass." If inertial mass is meant to be "rest mass," it is most likely that photons do not in fact have any rest mass. Taken literally, it would mean mass as in mass-energy equivalence, which photons do have, as photons are affected by gravitational wells, and GR is built on the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. My uncertainty here is because an alternative theory is being discussed, which possibly changes one of these statements or definitions (though I don't see why it should need to change them). -
#513 by flux_capacitor on 21 Sep, 2018 14:19
-
the statement on that page has the caveat of "if photons have inertia mass." If inertial mass is meant to be "rest mass," it is most likely that photons do not in fact have any rest mass. Taken literally, it would mean mass as in mass-energy equivalence, which photons do have, as photons are affected by gravitational wells, and GR is built on the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. My uncertainty here is because an alternative theory is being discussed, which possibly changes one of these statements or definitions (though I don't see why it should need to change them).
As quantized inertia is a theory that would explain the origin of inertia, McCulloch indeed tries to associate the term "inertial mass" to photons (whereas they do not have one) because inertia arises according to him due to an asymmetric Unruh radiation pressure on accelerating matter. Indeed he'd rather talk of momentum or the energy-mass equivalence principle for photons, instead of this hazardous association. -
#514 by sanman on 22 Sep, 2018 10:07
-
McCulloch has said that a consequence of Quantized Inertia could be an acceleration-frame-dependent aether. He's said this might be detectable as an altered ground state, under a sufficiently high acceleration.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1043070574766030848QuoteFor normal accelerations O(9.8m/s^2) the Unruh waves r light years long. Need to hugely accelerate a system, then check for ground state changes? eg:
https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0510743
Could it be possible to use the Large Hadron Collider to detect such an altered ground state?
Apparently, it can now accelerate full atoms including their electrons:
https://www.livescience.com/63211-lhc-atoms-with-electrons-light-speed.html
-
#515 by dustinthewind on 22 Sep, 2018 17:34
-
McCulloch has said that a consequence of Quantized Inertia could be an acceleration-frame-dependent aether. He's said this might be detectable as an altered ground state, under a sufficiently high acceleration.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1043070574766030848QuoteFor normal accelerations O(9.8m/s^2) the Unruh waves r light years long. Need to hugely accelerate a system, then check for ground state changes? eg:
https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0510743
Could it be possible to use the Large Hadron Collider to detect such an altered ground state?
Apparently, it can now accelerate full atoms including their electrons:
https://www.livescience.com/63211-lhc-atoms-with-electrons-light-speed.html
I'm trying to make this a little more clear, what you're trying to say. It sounds like there is a frame of the vacuum where at zero acceleration, I'll be at rest. At different levels of acceleration it may appear to be in another frame. Am I correct?
I ask because I've been thinking of something very similar.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1821294#msg1821294 -
#516 by sanman on 23 Sep, 2018 05:50
-
Well, for example, we are currently sitting in the Earth's gravity well, and experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from it. If you were sitting inside an accelerating spacecraft, you'd be experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from that. Einstein told us that being inside an elevator (or spacecraft) that's accelerating shouldn't feel different from being inside one in a gravitational field.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
So that's what I meant about acceleration reference frame. McCulloch is saying that sufficiently large differences in acceleration frame (or gravity field) might affect the measurable ground state of an atom. So the difference in how atomic constituents interact with each other (by way of the Vacuum), as correlated with acceleration frame, can be construed as an aether.
It doesn't sound like this means there's a "preferred frame" of the universe, just as there'd be no "preferred ground state". -
#517 by OnlyMe on 23 Sep, 2018 16:15
-
Well, for example, we are currently sitting in the Earth's gravity well, and experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from it. If you were sitting inside an accelerating spacecraft, you'd be experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from that. Einstein told us that being inside an elevator (or spacecraft) that's accelerating shouldn't feel different from being inside one in a gravitational field.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
So that's what I meant about acceleration reference frame. McCulloch is saying that sufficiently large differences in acceleration frame (or gravity field) might affect the measurable ground state of an atom. So the difference in how atomic constituents interact with each other (by way of the Vacuum), as correlated with acceleration frame, can be construed as an aether.
It doesn't sound like this means there's a "preferred frame" of the universe, just as there'd be no "preferred ground state".
Two thoughts to consider:
First, an insignificant qualification.., in the case of the equivalence principle there is only a superficial equivalence between a fixed location in a gravitational field and a uniformly accelerating “elevator”. In the elevator acceleration is the same at the floor and ceiling, while at any fixed location in a gravitational field, gravitational acceleration varies with the distance from the gravitational center of mass.
Second, when postulating any variation in the “vacuum’s” ground state associated with acceleration, the reasoning above could be applied to variations in the boundary conditions affecting atomic clocks.., and introduce a whole new debate about time dilation due to both acceleration and location within a gravitational field.
-
#518 by dustinthewind on 23 Sep, 2018 22:19
-
Well, for example, we are currently sitting in the Earth's gravity well, and experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from it. If you were sitting inside an accelerating spacecraft, you'd be experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from that. Einstein told us that being inside an elevator (or spacecraft) that's accelerating shouldn't feel different from being inside one in a gravitational field.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
So that's what I meant about acceleration reference frame. McCulloch is saying that sufficiently large differences in acceleration frame (or gravity field) might affect the measurable ground state of an atom. So the difference in how atomic constituents interact with each other (by way of the Vacuum), as correlated with acceleration frame, can be construed as an aether.
It doesn't sound like this means there's a "preferred frame" of the universe, just as there'd be no "preferred ground state".
Let us say you exist at near the speed of light. Would you not see the universe which resides mainly at non-relativistic speeds as Lorentz contracted? Is not the vacuum which exist a product of the universe? So your matter appears tilted in angle with respect to the universe via your velocity, causing your perception of the universe to appear Lorentz contracted. We do see a red-blue shift of the CMB of the universe currently and can measure our speed relative to it. This gives a sort of preferred frame far away from gravitational fields.
Let us shift our perspective to existing in a gravitational field. Now you exist near the event horizon of a black hole, far enough away to survive, but our perspective of the universe effected by our Lorentz contraction. To us we are not Lorentz contracted the universe is, because we are time traveling via our "effective" velocity w.r.t space time. Time passes by faster in the rest of the universe. The difference is that now space is tilted at an angle with respect to our matters tilt, changing the frame - changing our equivalent relative velocity or (space/time) w.r.t. the universe in a sense.
You may also notice that with the alcubierre warp drive tilted space is usually drawn in the vicinity of the ship. If the space tilts to match the matters tilt it may eliminate the gamma Factor that slows time keeping the object at the speed of light. In essence it's like creating a bubble of moving space that moves with the ship. In essence the ship would have no relative velocity with respect to the local space.
Lens-thirring or frame dragging around rotating objects also drags SpaceTime around them so that the speed of light around one way is faster than the other.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
-
#519 by Ricvil on 24 Sep, 2018 03:11
-
McCulloch has said that a consequence of Quantized Inertia could be an acceleration-frame-dependent aether. He's said this might be detectable as an altered ground state, under a sufficiently high acceleration.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1043070574766030848QuoteFor normal accelerations O(9.8m/s^2) the Unruh waves r light years long. Need to hugely accelerate a system, then check for ground state changes? eg:
https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0510743
Could it be possible to use the Large Hadron Collider to detect such an altered ground state?
Apparently, it can now accelerate full atoms including their electrons:
https://www.livescience.com/63211-lhc-atoms-with-electrons-light-speed.html
I've found a similar shape by Poincare conformal symmetry, but the pseudosphere has a constant negative curvature(and it needs to stop at some point), and what I've found is conformal to a torus , wich has both positive and negative curvature.
These shapes can, in principle, to produce very high Q resonances, located at position of RF source.
Anyway, there is a dual description with Emdrive.
The Unruh radiation would be a signal modulating the cavity resonant frequency.
The "SPP" would be the resulting Fano resonance between TE and TM modes, at condition of phase inversion.
And modulated SPP pression over surface curvature would produce a net force as "reciprocal" of incident laser pulse on the nanotip, remembering the frontwaves are under influence of a topological Berry phase originated by the shape of Boundary Conditions, or beeing more clear, under a cycle of modulating signal, a non zero net force/pressure is expected.
Of course, there is an outside/inside inversion.
PS: Someone has noted a Roger's "innocent trick" of "manifold soldering" at the junctions of flat endplates and the conical section?
It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. So that would mean McCulloch's theory predicts an effect which doesn't exist. 
