-
#580 by spupeng7 on 05 Oct, 2018 07:34
-
meberbs,yes, I agree that we should not subject anyone to discussion in this style. There is, however, a big difference between not understanding an argument and disagreeing with its logic. You have not answered my question as to how matter is supposed to interact with empty space, maybe I have not framed it adequately.
You literally said:papers which are forever beyond my ken.
where ken and understanding are effectively synonyms. You cannot disagree with its logic if you literally don't know what its logic is.
You cannot describe the location of 2 objects in a room relative to each other without 3 numbers, plus a fourth for time if things are moving around. It doesn't matter if there is nothing in between the objects, the fact that there is a distance between them is an obvious fact. If you find this incomprehensible, you are going to need to loosen your thinking to accept that that is how the universe works. I know of no further words that can describe it better than that, since the existence of 3 dimensional space is something people generally find intuitively obvious. (The specific manner that time interacts with spatial dimensions is a bit strange, but you have already been given resources that discuss that.)
well not everyone agrees that that is the case. Sin-Itero Tomonaga for example, but that is bye the bye. I have a inalienable right to an opinion, if you don't like it you should find something better than bully tactics to defend your position with.Quote from: meberbs(from a personal message)
bad faith arguments
« Sent to: spupeng7 on: 10/03/2018 06:37 AM »
Please give me a reason I shouldn't report you to the moderators for your continued refusal to engage in a productive conversation, upto and including outright lies where you literally say that you don't understand the papers you were given, and then in your next post deny that you lacked understanding of them, and that instead you disagreed with their logic.
Plus there is the whole thing where you keep trying to insist that you are the dictator of what words mean, ignore questions, and all of the other ways I have pointed out that you have been rude in our interactions.
I would welcome this. It would be nice to know what the current moderator thinks of our exchanges and wether or not I have played a proper part in this forum. -
#581 by Notsosureofit on 05 Oct, 2018 14:39
-
So, pure speculation after reading the paper.
Could it be that the devious satellite, which inspired Shawyer to ascribe it's motion to a cavity resonance effect, contained a traveling wave amplifier whose bunched electrons exhibited an anomalous phase shift ?
Pure speculation, I assure you.FYI: looking for full paper
Quantum formulation of the Einstein equivalence principle
Magdalena Zych & Časlav Brukner
Nature Physicsvolume 14, pages1027–1031 (2018) | Download Citation
Abstract
The validity of just a few physical conditions comprising the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) suffices to ensure that gravity can be understood as spacetime geometry. The EEP is therefore subject to ongoing experimental verification, with present-day tests reaching the regime in which quantum mechanics becomes relevant. Here we show that the classical expression of the EEP does not apply in such a regime. The EEP requires equivalence between the rest mass-energy of a system, the mass-energy that constitutes its inertia, and the mass-energy that constitutes its weight. In quantum mechanics, the energy contributing to the mass is given by a Hamiltonian operator of the internal degrees of freedom. Therefore, we introduce a quantum expression of the EEP—equivalence between the rest, inertial and gravitational internal energy operators. Validity of the classical EEP does not imply the validity of its quantum formulation, which thus requires independent experimental verification. We propose new tests as well as re-analysing existing experiments, and we discuss to what extent they allow quantum aspects of the EEP to be tested. -
#582 by Chris Bergin on 05 Oct, 2018 14:45
-
Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion. All members should respect each other's opinions, aim to correct, but not expect their comments to be taken as gospel.
However, I get the frustration when someone has a clearly wrong opinion and isn't willing to listen to advice. Not saying that's happened here lately, but still, forum rules are forum rules as much as I know a lot of you on here never leave this thread. Hilarious post down the thread saying "the forum's quiet" when it was firing like crazy with a SpaceX launch at the time! He meant this thread was quiet.
-
#583 by meberbs on 05 Oct, 2018 15:16
-
I am not particularly familiar with the work of Sin-Itero Tomonaga, but he got a Nobel prize for work on QED, in particular with work on renormalization which is incredibly important for the consistency of the theory. Nothing about that says that space-time is less than 4 -dimmensional. In fact, quite the opposite, it is the application of relativistic 4-dimensional space-time to quantum mechanics. This is not the first time you have cited some renowned physicist to support something that you claim despite your claim contradicting their work....
well not everyone agrees that that is the case. Sin-Itero Tomonaga for example, but that is bye the bye.
You cannot describe the location of 2 objects in a room relative to each other without 3 numbers, plus a fourth for time if things are moving around. It doesn't matter if there is nothing in between the objects, the fact that there is a distance between them is an obvious fact. If you find this incomprehensible, you are going to need to loosen your thinking to accept that that is how the universe works. I know of no further words that can describe it better than that, since the existence of 3 dimensional space is something people generally find intuitively obvious. (The specific manner that time interacts with spatial dimensions is a bit strange, but you have already been given resources that discuss that.)
Per above, you have a right to an opinion, but calling it an opinion doesn't mean that you can't be demonstrably wrong. I am providing information that you seem to have missed that counters your claims, please don't take it as an attack on you. -
#584 by X_RaY on 05 Oct, 2018 18:09
-
@ all
No, this simulations were done by myself for J.P. Montillet* (with some help from Paul Mach who delivered the approximated position and magnetic field strength). We did not come to a final conclusion up to date.
Thank's X_RaY.Hi lovers and denyers of emdrives.
Not observed but introduced: Eagle Works initially used a magnetic damper based on neodymium magnets near the cavity... They did some magnetic measurements with a probe around the frustum but this was not documented (info by Paul Mach). Kind of non reciprocal effects based on this has been discussed a while back.
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
I think if Eagle Works was expecting by simulations, or had observed an external magnetic field.
This simulations in yours last post, appears indicating a try to find an excitation of cavity by inverse path.
They had simulated the response of a cavity with 0.035 thick walls under a dipole excitation of 1 Hertz.
I think they try to test reciprocity theorem with negative results.
The 1 Hz simulation was performed to imitate a static field from an permanent magnet (using only a single phase angle from the simulation, not the full cycle of 360 deg at 1 Hz). This static field should be combined with a ~1 GHz TM010 resonance within the cavity. Of course, to search for non reciprocal effects, maybe acting on the cavity.
The point is that there are data calculated on the same grid for ~1 GHz and for the quasi-static 1 Hz situation. But the combination is still pending.
*He has derived another interesting concept of thrust generation called "relativistic capacitor".
I am still in contact with J.P. Montillet, he currently has no time to evaluate the data as explained in my post above.
If someone has the time and the desire to take over the post calculation on the simulation data, for example with matlab or so, he would offer consulting support. I could also contribute to the explanation of the simulations.
For email contact to me and/or him in this regard send me a PM.
-
#585 by Mark7777777 on 05 Oct, 2018 21:34
-
Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion. All members should respect each other's opinions, aim to correct, but not expect their comments to be taken as gospel.
However, I get the frustration when someone has a clearly wrong opinion and isn't willing to listen to advice. Not saying that's happened here lately, but still, forum rules are forum rules as much as I know a lot of you on here never leave this thread. Hilarious post down the thread saying "the forum's quiet" when it was firing like crazy with a SpaceX launch at the time! He meant this thread was quiet.
Strange as it may sound, I didn't really realise that there were other threads in this forum until Chris reminded people to that fact. Coming here originally from an outside link I guess by brain had subconcious inertia to explore the tree from where this branch came. Maybe an internet information overload thing.
Anyway... since Chris mentioned it I have been looking around other NSF threads, including the Woodward thread which I enjoyed reading.
-
#586 by meberbs on 05 Oct, 2018 21:58
-
Strange as it may sound, I didn't really realise that there were other threads in this forum until Chris reminded people to that fact. Coming here originally from an outside link I guess by brain had subconcious inertia to explore the tree from where this branch came. Maybe an internet information overload thing.
Off topic for this thread, but it is worth a reminder for those like you who came to this site in a similar fashion.
Anyway... since Chris mentioned it I have been looking around other NSF threads, including the Woodward thread which I enjoyed reading.
While my first posts here were on this thread, I found this site because of its excellent space news coverage, and also finding the excellent quality of the forums, which is why this is the one site I have ever signed up as a member of. The quality is good enough that some posters here are literally executives at major (or minor) aerospace firms. For example, in one thread for suggestions on who could be NASA administrator, someone suggested a candidate. That suggested candidate happens to be a member here and responded explaining why they weren't the right person for the job.
The rules here, and the hard work of the moderators, make this a place really unlike most of the internet in a very good way. If anyone here hasn't done so, they should take a look at some of the other sections of this site (and yes, if you get L2, there is even better info in there.)
-
#587 by spupeng7 on 07 Oct, 2018 01:45
-
Thanks meberbs,
I am not particularly familiar with the work of Sin-Itero Tomonaga, but he got a Nobel prize for work on QED, in particular with work on renormalization which is incredibly important for the consistency of the theory. Nothing about that says that space-time is less than 4 -dimmensional. In fact, quite the opposite, it is the application of relativistic 4-dimensional space-time to quantum mechanics. This is not the first time you have cited some renowned physicist to support something that you claim despite your claim contradicting their work....
well not everyone agrees that that is the case. Sin-Itero Tomonaga for example, but that is bye the bye.
You cannot describe the location of 2 objects in a room relative to each other without 3 numbers, plus a fourth for time if things are moving around. It doesn't matter if there is nothing in between the objects, the fact that there is a distance between them is an obvious fact. If you find this incomprehensible, you are going to need to loosen your thinking to accept that that is how the universe works. I know of no further words that can describe it better than that, since the existence of 3 dimensional space is something people generally find intuitively obvious. (The specific manner that time interacts with spatial dimensions is a bit strange, but you have already been given resources that discuss that.)
Per above, you have a right to an opinion, but calling it an opinion doesn't mean that you can't be demonstrably wrong. I am providing information that you seem to have missed that counters your claims, please don't take it as an attack on you.
thanks also to everyone here for their patience. In post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1846805#msg1846805 I quoted,
" ... the concept of a common time at different space points does not have a relativistically covariant meaning." Sin-Itiro Tomonaga - Nobel Lecture 1966
because it powerfully demonstrates how easy it is to assume that relativity translates into the Euclidian space within which we can visualize dynamics, but it does not. General relativity, so far as I can dimly discern, allows us to translate dynamics into Euclidian space at the cost of narrowing our perspective to a single point. There is a lot, in my opinion, to be gained from maintaining the wider covariant perspective, which retains validity from all perspectives. It gives us a very different idea of the relocation of quanta of energy and it gives us a very different idea of the energy which can be exchanged by purely electrical interactions which may be able to act through the walls of a Faraday cage.
It is, however, not easy to visualize. I insist on proposing complex time to assist us in that visualization because it is the only solution I can find.
I appreciate the patience shown me on this forum and will be happy to limit my contributions to fresh papers and technical comments as Chris indicates is more suitable. Happy to admit that I am wrong, I almost certainly am, but I will never relinquish the fight to find a mechanism of action by which we can continuously thrust a craft through empty space
-
#588 by meberbs on 07 Oct, 2018 17:14
-
General relativity, so far as I can dimly discern, allows us to translate dynamics into Euclidian space at the cost of narrowing our perspective to a single point.
No, GR describes fully curved space with all of its complications. Since this is hard for people to grasp, and often space is relatively flat locally, some problems are solved with "flat" local space which is just special relativity. (Flat here still includes the complication of no universal time that you quoted, since that is just part of special relativity, and the spacetime is therefore non-Euclidean.) The math is general and allows any perspective.There is a lot, in my opinion, to be gained from maintaining the wider covariant perspective,
You still seem to be not understanding the word covariant. If you understood what it meant, you wouldn't be claiming that GR is not covariant, when it was from the beginning inherently covariant; it essentially introduced the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance
Talk about a "covariant perspective" still makes no sense. Every perspective is inherently different (as the quote you provided states.) The math used though is generally true independent of that, and also provides defined rules for transforming between perspectives. The math is fully independent of choice of coordinate system, which is what it actually means to be covariant.It is, however, not easy to visualize. I insist on proposing complex time to assist us in that visualization because it is the only solution I can find.
You still haven't been able to so much as describe simple motion such as a ball rolling down a hill with your "complex time." Physicists have found multiple helpful ways to display the curvature of space-time, with the problem being that any visual display is inherently limited in choice of perspective, and human senses are all designed to work on only one perspective at a time. This is why physicists typically work in math which is fully general. Complex time would at best rearrange the display problem, not make it go way, or suddenly make humans better at seeing things from multiple perspectives at once.I appreciate the patience shown me on this forum and will be happy to limit my contributions to fresh papers and technical comments as Chris indicates is more suitable. Happy to admit that I am wrong, I almost certainly am, but I will never relinquish the fight to find a mechanism of action by which we can continuously thrust a craft through empty space
There are some basic clarifications you could make that could help, and should be simple for you to answer. For example, you referenced "imaginary time" when I asked for a workable definition of "complex time" and after I pointed out the fundamental difference between those terms I never saw you clarify which you actually mean. (If the second, then the request for a definition stands.) -
#589 by Peter Lauwer on 08 Oct, 2018 14:29
-
I belief the recent paper by Tajmar's group has not been referred to here (69th Int. Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018):
The SpaceDrive Project-Thrust Balance Development and New Measurements of the Mach-Effect and EMDrive Thrusters
Abstract
Forces claimed by potential propellantless propulsion systems like the Mach-Effect thruster or the EMDrive are in the μN or even sub-μN range. In this paper, an automated thrust balance design capable of measuring forces of 100 nN for thrusters with a maximum mass of 10 kg is described to test these claims. The torsion balance features an electromagnetic calibration method, adjustable magnetic damping and tilt control as well as electromagnetic shielding. All onboard electronics can be controlled wirelessly via an infrared module for serial communication. Power is supplied to the balance using three separate liquid metal feedthroughs: one for voltages up to 500 V and frequencies up to 200 kHz, one for high voltage up to 30 kV DC or AC, and one for high frequency signals up to 3 GHz. The thruster can be rotated by 180° to measure three different thrust directions without breaking the vacuum and changing the setup in order to gain confidence and refute e.g. thermal drifts. The whole balance is controlled via a script language implemented in LabVIEW. We tested Mach-Effect thrusters provided by Woodward and our own built model exploring higher frequencies and mixed-signals that are believed to create significantly higher thrusters. Also a magnetostrictive version was built and tested. For the EMDrive, several different frequencies and setups (with/without dielectric insert, flat/spherical end caps) were tested. So far, only thermal drifts and no real thrust has been observed in all our measurements.
-
#590 by bunjatec on 09 Oct, 2018 07:26
-
WRT Tajmar's Paper, I think that's killed the EM dream for me.
Well done to the Dresden group for some hard work to develop such a sensitive test stand..
I hope they keep it operational to test any other propellantless thrusters (I'm specifically thinking about Mike McCulloch's approach).
I still _really_ hope that a propellantless propulsion system eventually emerges, but till then I think we're stuck chucking mass out the back of a spaceship...
-
#591 by cvbn on 09 Oct, 2018 08:26
-
I hope they keep it operational to test any other propellantless thrusters (I'm specifically thinking about Mike McCulloch's approach).
Part of the DARPA funding, which McCulloch won, will go to Tajmar, so he surery will use that again on Taylor's drive based on McCulloch's theory.I still _really_ hope that a propellantless propulsion system eventually emerges, but till then I think we're stuck chucking mass out the back of a spaceship...
UFOs do not fly using rockets, so another method of propulsion seems possible.
-
#592 by Mark7777777 on 09 Oct, 2018 09:14
-
WRT Tajmar's Paper, I think that's killed the EM dream for me.
Well done to the Dresden group for some hard work to develop such a sensitive test stand..
I hope they keep it operational to test any other propellantless thrusters (I'm specifically thinking about Mike McCulloch's approach).
I still _really_ hope that a propellantless propulsion system eventually emerges, but till then I think we're stuck chucking mass out the back of a spaceship...
Maybe one day in the future enough mass could be made to throw out the back:
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-underway.html
-
#593 by cvbn on 09 Oct, 2018 12:07
-
McCulloch's job advert looking for a post-doc:
https://hrservices.plymouth.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=536609C8bp&WVID=1602750fTZ&LANG=USA
Anybody here wants to apply?
-
#594 by meberbs on 09 Oct, 2018 19:16
-
Maybe one day in the future enough mass could be made to throw out the back:
This is the exact opposite of what is needed. At the point that you can do that at scale, you want to take the matter and anti-matter, react them together on board to turn them back into light, and throw that light out the back. Being able to generate the large quantity of anti-matter to store on board is the only reason that link would be relevant.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-underway.html -
#595 by Bob Woods on 09 Oct, 2018 22:12
-
McCulloch's job advert looking for a post-doc:
Wanting to and having the skills are two different things
https://hrservices.plymouth.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=536609C8bp&WVID=1602750fTZ&LANG=USA
Anybody here wants to apply?
-
#596 by spupeng7 on 10 Oct, 2018 01:47
-
meberbs,General relativity, so far as I can dimly discern, allows us to translate dynamics into Euclidian space at the cost of narrowing our perspective to a single point.
No, GR describes fully curved space with all of its complications. Since this is hard for people to grasp, and often space is relatively flat locally, some problems are solved with "flat" local space which is just special relativity. (Flat here still includes the complication of no universal time that you quoted, since that is just part of special relativity, and the spacetime is therefore non-Euclidean.) The math is general and allows any perspective.There is a lot, in my opinion, to be gained from maintaining the wider covariant perspective,
You still seem to be not understanding the word covariant. If you understood what it meant, you wouldn't be claiming that GR is not covariant, when it was from the beginning inherently covariant; it essentially introduced the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance
Talk about a "covariant perspective" still makes no sense. Every perspective is inherently different (as the quote you provided states.) The math used though is generally true independent of that, and also provides defined rules for transforming between perspectives. The math is fully independent of choice of coordinate system, which is what it actually means to be covariant.It is, however, not easy to visualize. I insist on proposing complex time to assist us in that visualization because it is the only solution I can find.
You still haven't been able to so much as describe simple motion such as a ball rolling down a hill with your "complex time." Physicists have found multiple helpful ways to display the curvature of space-time, with the problem being that any visual display is inherently limited in choice of perspective, and human senses are all designed to work on only one perspective at a time. This is why physicists typically work in math which is fully general. Complex time would at best rearrange the display problem, not make it go way, or suddenly make humans better at seeing things from multiple perspectives at once.I appreciate the patience shown me on this forum and will be happy to limit my contributions to fresh papers and technical comments as Chris indicates is more suitable. Happy to admit that I am wrong, I almost certainly am, but I will never relinquish the fight to find a mechanism of action by which we can continuously thrust a craft through empty space
There are some basic clarifications you could make that could help, and should be simple for you to answer. For example, you referenced "imaginary time" when I asked for a workable definition of "complex time" and after I pointed out the fundamental difference between those terms I never saw you clarify which you actually mean. (If the second, then the request for a definition stands.)
we have been asked to discontinue this absurd reciprocation of misunderstandings, I think we should both respect that. -
#597 by meberbs on 10 Oct, 2018 06:06
-
we have been asked to discontinue this absurd reciprocation of misunderstandings, I think we should both respect that.
A reminder of forum rules was made rather than a direct request to stop related discussion. There don't have to be misunderstandings if you help clarify your statements. I would enjoy continued discussion if you decide to clarify your statements as described in my previous post. If you post more untrue statements about existing physics or renowned physicists, I will probably respond as well, although without the enjoyment. Otherwise this is as good of a stopping point as any. -
#598 by Monomorphic on 10 Oct, 2018 11:21
-
Here is someone we haven't heard from in a while. Too bad Cannae isn't more open with their research.
OCTOBER 2, 2018
THRUSTER DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES
Cannae Inc. continues thruster testing and development. We are in the process of securing funds for our satellite demonstration. Cannae anticipates launching a cubesat mounted version of the Cannae thruster in 2019. Keep posted.
Source: http://cannae.com/thruster-development-continues/
-
#599 by Star One on 10 Oct, 2018 12:57
-
Here is someone we haven't heard from in a while. Too bad Cannae isn't more open with their research.
OCTOBER 2, 2018
THRUSTER DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES
Cannae Inc. continues thruster testing and development. We are in the process of securing funds for our satellite demonstration. Cannae anticipates launching a cubesat mounted version of the Cannae thruster in 2019. Keep posted.
Source: http://cannae.com/thruster-development-continues/
Has anyone found out why they are so secretive, is it just commercial reasons?
