-
#520 by spupeng7 on 25 Sep, 2018 03:28
-
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.
sanman, your interesting looking link would not work from here today. Aside: interaction across complex time does not require space to have any properties at all.
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". -
#521 by spupeng7 on 25 Sep, 2018 03:45
-
Ricvil,
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?
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective. -
#522 by dustinthewind on 25 Sep, 2018 04:16
-
I think the use of the imgainary or i term sqrt(-1) in time is used to sepearate time from the space dimension. In a way there are 3 dimensions to time as there are to space and they are related (space/time). An object can be length contracted along all space axis via time travel. The imaginary term allows time to be represented as perpendicular to the corresponding space dimension. If the volume of an object reduces to zero it's time stops (Lorentz contraction). Its volume encompassing the thermal turbulance in the vacuum. Thermal turbulance providing energy for the decay of unstable particles to tunnel out of their barriers if the energy is low enough for them to tunnel out such that vacuum energy is enough (radio active decay). Atomic clocks and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
imaginary means no less real. If the physics describes reality, then its real. When using an exponential e^i*(theta) the imaginary dimension is perpendicular to the real. Or such that velocity might be represented in more than one dimension such that it effects space and time. -
#523 by Monomorphic on 25 Sep, 2018 12:31
-
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon. -
#524 by meberbs on 25 Sep, 2018 14:32
-
Ricvil,
You cannot define causality independent of spatial geometry. It is inherent to relativity that causality and the distance between objects are linked. Space and time are not separate things, but are parts of the same thing: spacetime. You can rearrange the numbers in various ways, but there are 4 degrees of freedom, which require at least 4 independent real numbers to describe. A complex number is worth at most 2 real numbers.
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective.
You are still using "covariant" in contexts that don't make sense. Covariant describes how things transform under specific transformations. This is how it has always been used as the quote you provided from Einstein showed. I can think of no reason you would continue using your personal, incorrect, definition unless your goal is simply to confuse people rather than to convey information.
Maybe reading the link below would help you understand both the correct use of the term covariant, and the concept of 4-vectors.
http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture421_ch4.pdf
-
#525 by Ricvil on 25 Sep, 2018 19:22
-
Dear Spupeng7,
Ricvil,
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?
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective.
If I undertand, your covariant definition tries enlarge usual diffeomorphism degree of freedom.
Usually this enlarge is made in flat spacetimes by wich is called wick rotation, and can be interpreted as an analytic continuation of time coordinate.
I understand you are trying to overcome the mixed problem
of interactions descriptions under causality restrictions using a kind of complex proper time, probaly using a kind of complex metric.
I've found an interesting article in this way, but there are always a kind of ad-hoc time/space orientation linked back by Fourier transforms related to space/time energy/momentum commutation relations (try to find Feynman path integral represention of propagator)
PS: Adding some very technical material.
-
#526 by Mark7777777 on 26 Sep, 2018 04:56
-
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
Direct link to James Woodward archived video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018/videos/180771871 -
#527 by RERT on 26 Sep, 2018 09:17
-
Direct link to James Woodward archived video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018/videos/180771871
Tajmar's null test of Woodward's thrusters attached. Very glad to see Woodward still looking so confident! R.
-
#528 by flux_capacitor on 26 Sep, 2018 09:22
-
Direct link to James Woodward archived video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018/videos/180771871
Tajmar's null test of Woodward's thrusters attached. Very glad to see Woodward still looking so confident! R.
If you didn't read the content of that document, just look at the date and pictures of the device tested: it was an MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) with no bulk acceleration. Woodward has moved years ago to METs (Mach Effect Thrusters) aka MEGA drives, which are based on vibrating piezoelectric discs. Not the same thing at all.
By the way, this belongs to the Woodward thread. Can we stop posting about Woodward, Mach effects, MEGA drives and vibrating Dean drives in the EM drive thread? -
#529 by RERT on 26 Sep, 2018 18:12
-
Apologies. I saw some date in 2018 on the google search page, didn't spot the earlier date on the paper. I read the conclusion which seemed consistent with current activity. Yes, I can stop posting on Woodward here, though my post was a response to the previous.
-
#530 by DamianM on 26 Sep, 2018 20:25
-
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
EM Resonator Wave Propulsion Electromagnetic
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102016013909A1/de?inventor=Hans-Walter+Hahn -
#531 by spupeng7 on 27 Sep, 2018 01:45
-
meberbs and Ricvil,Ricvil,
You cannot define causality independent of spatial geometry. It is inherent to relativity that causality and the distance between objects are linked. Space and time are not separate things, but are parts of the same thing: spacetime. You can rearrange the numbers in various ways, but there are 4 degrees of freedom, which require at least 4 independent real numbers to describe. A complex number is worth at most 2 real numbers.
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective.
You are still using "covariant" in contexts that don't make sense. Covariant describes how things transform under specific transformations. This is how it has always been used as the quote you provided from Einstein showed. I can think of no reason you would continue using your personal, incorrect, definition unless your goal is simply to confuse people rather than to convey information.
Maybe reading the link below would help you understand both the correct use of the term covariant, and the concept of 4-vectors.
http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture421_ch4.pdf
thankyou for your excellent questions. I will consider my replies while I let you focus on the NIAC live stream, which does not seem to be available here in Australia
Meantime, causality should be independent of spatial geometry for two reasons, firstly because it is the consequence of interactions between mass and secondly because space itself has no substance with which to retain any specific geometry. It is not my intention to confuse but to try to resolve some of these very confused issues which are, to my mind, hindering the progress of physics. -
#532 by Ricvil on 27 Sep, 2018 02:37
-
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
EM Resonator Wave Propulsion Electromagnetic
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102016013909A1/de?inventor=Hans-Walter+Hahn
"In the dielectric waveguide ( 5 ) Occur no surface currents, so no forces are exerted on this entire structure." -FALSE
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20515
-
#533 by meberbs on 27 Sep, 2018 07:18
-
Meantime, causality should be independent of spatial geometry for two reasons, firstly because it is the consequence of interactions between mass and secondly because space itself has no substance with which to retain any specific geometry.
Causality is linked to the speed of light. Experiments show that this really is the speed limit. As a result you have to take into account distance between object when determining causality. You probably can rearrange things to hide this, but no matter what, something in your equations will be equivalent to a distance term, that or your theory would simply be inconsistent with experiment. Space can have geometry even if it doesn't have substance, for example, it could be shaped into a loop, so things that travel in a straight line end up back where they started. In special relativity the spacetime is a shape called "Minkowski" which basically means that space is flat, but interacts in a special way with time.It is not my intention to confuse but to try to resolve some of these very confused issues which are, to my mind, hindering the progress of physics.
You keep insisting that physics doesn't make sense, while demonstrating that you don't know what physics actually says. The "issues" you are bringing up are not "confused" for people who actually study them. -
#534 by Ricvil on 28 Sep, 2018 16:42
-
This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification of cutoff position.
PS2: is "Scale", and not "Scalate"
PS3: If not clear, the yellow line represents the conical part of cavity after scaling.
-
#535 by Monomorphic on 28 Sep, 2018 21:46
-
This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
-
#536 by Ricvil on 28 Sep, 2018 23:42
-
This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
Thank's Monomorphic,
I've found Kenjee simulation with Lorentizian shape and flat endplates.
Their curve and mine matches.
The remain question is if that resonance was a Fano resonance with phase inversion.
-
#537 by spupeng7 on 29 Sep, 2018 01:38
-
Ricvil,Meantime, causality should be independent of spatial geometry for two reasons, firstly because it is the consequence of interactions between mass and secondly because space itself has no substance with which to retain any specific geometry.
Causality is linked to the speed of light. Experiments show that this really is the speed limit. As a result you have to take into account distance between object when determining causality. You probably can rearrange things to hide this, but no matter what, something in your equations will be equivalent to a distance term, that or your theory would simply be inconsistent with experiment. Space can have geometry even if it doesn't have substance, for example, it could be shaped into a loop, so things that travel in a straight line end up back where they started. In special relativity the spacetime is a shape called "Minkowski" which basically means that space is flat, but interacts in a special way with time.It is not my intention to confuse but to try to resolve some of these very confused issues which are, to my mind, hindering the progress of physics.
You keep insisting that physics doesn't make sense, while demonstrating that you don't know what physics actually says. The "issues" you are bringing up are not "confused" for people who actually study them.
thankyou for the reference to arXiv papers which are forever beyond my ken. I cannot fathom their logic one bit. At risk of sounding rude, it matters not how many tripple spin mathematical backflips we do, none of it gives us a mechanism by which matter interacts with the space that it is in. Where is the mechanism of interaction between matter and empty space which could possibly satisfy conservation of momentum? That would be an ether. In my opinion separation between objects is not something we can specify without using a complex conjugate for our measure of time which is moderated by the relative velocity of those objects.
Maybe causality can be better defined without spatial geometry. Causality is a term referring to the interaction of things as a cause of the development of circumstance, without a real sequence for events which depends upon the inevitable speed of light across which interaction must occur, there is separation of effect from cause. The strict set of relations described by orthogonal spatial dimensions cannot be true except within the space local to a single clock. If you abandon that absurdity and accept that time has a complex conjugate then causality no longer requires "unreal electromagnetic frontwaves". You can find direct causality in the influence that the acceleration of any charge has on the location of all other charges, proportional to a separation which remains covariant.
The point I am trying to make about time is that our arguments are based on insufficient reason until we understand that there is no common scalar time at disparate points in space, except from a limited and unique set of perspectives. And so, all else fails, along with our ability to understand how purchase for acceleration can be gained against the distant universe.
meberbs,
my use of the word covariant is valid, as I have soundly demonstrated. I do not think it should be constantly questioned because it is a fundamental descriptor used in relativity for a century and more.
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1851431#msg1851431
It should be clear that I attempt to clarify a dangerously mysterious subject, as best I can. Relativity deserves disciplined creative thought, properly argued, how could we devote ourselves to it by lesser means. Personal attacks such as accusations of poor intent should be taken to the moderator.
dustinthewind,
the complex time I propose has no perpendicular, it is a separation between objects or charges which varies with their relative velocity. I propose this because distance, in 3D space and scalar time alone, is not covariant. If we are to discuss separation, which is what physical interaction is regulated by, then we need to raise our game and define it succinctly. Complex time allows us to define separation as divergence of location in the proper time of the observer, which is covariant and specifies ct, which converts readily into meters in the perspective of that observer.
Thank you all for your good questions.
-
#538 by ThinkerX on 29 Sep, 2018 06:17
-
Quote
This forum is too quiet.
The EM Drive threads are quiet because the EM Drive, both theoretically and experimentally, is in severe trouble - and that is an optimistic assessment.
The Mach Drive is also in severe trouble, though with that a 'somewhat plausible' theoretical 'out' remains. -
#539 by OnlyMe on 29 Sep, 2018 20:56
-
Quote
This forum is too quiet.
The EM Drive threads are quiet because the EM Drive, both theoretically and experimentally, is in severe trouble - and that is an optimistic assessment.
The Mach Drive is also in severe trouble, though with that a 'somewhat plausible' theoretical 'out' remains.
While there has been a great deal of effort and time put into improving test beds and test data quality, there has been too much variation in the design of frustum and associated drive components, to make any scientific conclusion as to whether an EmDrive can or cannot, generate any useable force/thrust.
From the start, lacking a credible theoretical model, attempts to prove or disprove the viability of an EmDrive as a practical source of even small useable thrusts, was a engineering puzzle which should have been focused on an attempt to reproduce one of the early builds where claims of thrust were made. A task made even more difficult since neither Shawyer or Yang were willing to provide sufficient detail to accurately reproduce their even early designs.
Without having reproduced even one of those early designs and either proven or disproven the claims of a useable thrust, modifying and adapting design based on theoretical simulation has led to a situation where it seems each new attempt tests a new design/build sufficiently evolved and different, that they cannot even be assessed as comparable one with another, let alone be a credible test of the original build. SeeShells May have come close in her 2015 build, but time, life and criticism seem to have stalled further pursuit...
The point is set aside theory, it is fun and at times instructional, but without a functional device premature. And then before anyone passes judgement as “scientific” the process needs to step back to the basic designs that the early claims of anomalous thrust began with. There is nothing I have seen publicly shared that suggests that the claimed effect scales with frequency or power. It cannot even be said that the essentially “dirty” signal from a magnetron is not a critical component of success.
Current designs may have been overly influenced by simulations inherently based on biased models. After all, the underlying physics says the thing won’t work, so if it does it must require either “new physics” or at the least an new application and understanding of existing physics.
