-
#960 by JohnFornaro on 17 Apr, 2019 19:33
-
Meberbs,
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You know full well that he has asked over and over again for the math supporting your analysis.The equations of electrodynamics clearly say that a cavity accelerating under an external force would feel a very small force in the opposite of the direction of acceleration. This is not only not the direction claimed by Shawyer, but since it is just the equivalent of the cavity mass being increased by the total amount of electromagnetic energy contained inside of it according to the relation E = m*c^2, the net effect is negligibly small, and in no way generates useful propulsion.
I myself am but an egg when it comes to QM and the math behind it. But the thing is, Shawyer puts the arrows indicating direction of acceleration and the application of force in the wrong direction. Were this a simple math error, he would have corrected it, but he has not. -
#961 by oyzw on 18 Apr, 2019 00:53
-
In the case where the electromagnetic field in the cavity is perturbed, the thrust direction of the cavity can be changed or even greatly reduced. Different cavity sizes, structures, modes, coupling methods, etc., can change the thrust response characteristics. Shawyer did not establish an accurate model to judge.Meberbs,
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You know full well that he has asked over and over again for the math supporting your analysis.The equations of electrodynamics clearly say that a cavity accelerating under an external force would feel a very small force in the opposite of the direction of acceleration. This is not only not the direction claimed by Shawyer, but since it is just the equivalent of the cavity mass being increased by the total amount of electromagnetic energy contained inside of it according to the relation E = m*c^2, the net effect is negligibly small, and in no way generates useful propulsion.
I myself am but an egg when it comes to QM and the math behind it. But the thing is, Shawyer puts the arrows indicating direction of acceleration and the application of force in the wrong direction. Were this a simple math error, he would have corrected it, but he has not. -
#962 by JohnFornaro on 18 Apr, 2019 15:16
-
In the case where the electromagnetic field in the cavity is perturbed, the thrust direction of the cavity can be changed or even greatly reduced.
Thanks for this general observation, but the goal is conscious application of a significant accelerating force in a preferred direction, not random perturbations of those forces. However, "greatly reduced", does sound like an accurate depiction of the forces that may be at hand. -
#963 by flux_capacitor on 20 Apr, 2019 11:25
-
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.
So this is not a superconductor. First of all, if it was its utility is killed by the fact that they have to keep vibrating it, and have it surrounded by a coil with a pulsed current running through it (Also, they have a pulsed current running through the supposed superconductor as well). This makes it an active device that consumes energy to run.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
The claim that it would satisfy the perfect exclusion of magnetic fields because it is carrying a current and it is vibrating and would therefore exclude magnetic field lines from other magnets. This is a complete non-sequiter. It having its own magnetic field under its default state is not the same thing as reacting to the presence of an external magnetic field to generate a perfect exclusion of that field from its interior.
They also describe it as having a thickness of approximately the London penetration depth. They ignore that this depth is material dependent and use the depth for a different actual superconductor. Also, the London penetration depth is the thickness where about 60% of the external magnetic field is excluded (because you need some thickness of material, "perfect exclusion" has an asterisk on it in practice.) This means that their device is designed to be too thin to actually exhibit true superconducting properties.
Same US Navy scientist, Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais:
Ph.D. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)/ Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), NAS Patuxent River Maryland 20670,
filed two other patent applications that were previously been reported a few pages back by Freddled Gruntbuggly, but not discussed contrary to the 3rd patent. These two other patents are:Unsure if this is on topic but the inventor of the above Room temp superconductor patent has a couple of others which appear to use microwave emitters and resonant cavities.
NextBigFuture website briefly talked about them two months ago.
Gravity Wave Generator : https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180229864A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Craft using Inertial Mass Reduction Device : https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.
• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.
• "A hybrid craft using an inertial mass modification device", AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, Orlando, FL, September 2017.*
Your critical advice on these two papers is welcome.
* The 2017 AIAA SPACE Forum in Orlando was canceled at last minute due to hurricane Irma. However, paper were submitted and a similar document has been published a few days laters by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE International) as a technical paper (ref. 2017-01-2040) under the name "High Frequency Gravitational Waves - Induced Propulsion".
-
#964 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2019 18:39
-
Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.
Totally agree about trying to work backwards from patents, so I'll start looking at the papers:• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.
On of the first red flags I come across is this paragraph:QuoteThere are four known fundamental forces which control matter and therefore control energy, namely the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic (EM) force and the gravitational force. In this hierarchy of forces, the EM force is perfectly positioned to be able to manipulate the other three.
There is simply no basis for the statement about electromagnetism manipulating the other fundamental forces. Physicists are working on theories to unify the fundamental forces. They have succeeded with unifying EM with the weak force, but it would be incorrect to characterize that as EM "manipulating" the weak force.
Moving on, the paper talks about a plate with a charge density of 50000 Coulombs / m^2. This is an absolutely insane amount of charge. If you used a copper plate 0.0037 mm thick, this is equal to the total free charge in the plate. For the 2m radius plate he is discussing, putting that much charge on it is equivalent to draining all of the conduction electrons from roughly 0.4 kg of copper. Now for the forces involved (I am now going to pretend the charge is in a nice sphere for simplicity, which is completely fine for my first calculation.) The balancing charge for all of the charge on the plate must exist somewhere. Lets for a moment pretend that the balancing charge is on the moon. In that case, the force between the 2 collections of charge would be on the order of 24000 N. If you put the charges in the same building, about 10 m apart (here is where the spherical approximation I mentioned matters) the force would be on the order of 10^19 N, or about an order of magnitude below the force the Earth exerts on the entire mass of the Moon.
Now, to go back to the flat plate situation, lets calculate the energy involved assuming a parallel plate capacitor of just 1 mm separation. (Lower separation distance means less energy required to perform the separation.) That mean 1.7*10^18 J of energy. That is equivalent to over 28000 Hiroshima bombs, or roughly 8.5 of Tsar Bomba. I do not want anyone running this experiment anywhere closer than the moon. (To keep the voltage down to a level that has a chance of the charge not instantly jumping the gap, you need a much wider gap and proportionally more energy.)
The rest of the paper talks about how much high fields and radiated energy you can get (therefore Schwinger limit, etc), none of which is surprising when you pack more energy into a 2 m radius than the most powerful nuclear bomb ever. Also, none of which is practical for the same reason. I have my doubts about the validity of some of the equations (it seems to be assuming radius is equal to the edge of the disc, the radiated power per square meter does not specify at what distance from the disk, etc.), but none of that is relevant, because starting with a device that would rip itself apart, and saying "look how much power can be output from this after we pumped it full of energy" is simply useless.
I may get to the other paper later, but at best claims from this author should be regarded with a lot of suspicion. Just glancing through the other paper, is seems to start from the same device as the other paper, then it talks about some experiment about anti-gravity gyros, handwaves away multiple papers that do not replicate the original results, invents his own explanation for the effect based on an assumption about the original experiment, and goes on to claim a device that magically uses electromagnetism to generate anti-gravity. -
#965 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2019 19:18
-
The question: Does physics require that CoM involve an outside force or is that only a reflection of classical experience? Or as crudely described below could the interaction be between the resonant EM field inside the frustum and induced EM field in the frustum walls?
The conservation laws I described are general in that you can take a closed device and its total momentum will not change without an external interaction, momentum can move between its different parts, but that is it. If there is an external interaction with something in the form of a force, then the equal and opposite reaction law balances things. Alternatively, depending on the initial definition of your system, it could change momentum by have mass (or energy/photons) leave the system, carrying away momentum. This generally covers any kind of interaction.
Noether's theorem is a fairly strong statement about conservation of momentum existing. GR starts to get into an exception, but even in GR, conservation of momentum holds locally. (locally being defined as interactions limited by the speed of light.) Globally, there are issues with even defining conservation laws, which is why I don't use this argument with the Mach effect. (I have doubts for related reasons, but am not sure if it is even possible to express those doubts mathematically.)I am not yet fully convinced there is “nothing there”, nor that there “is”, but I believe that if there is, it is far more likely to be a fragile electromagnetic interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced electromagnetic properties in the frustum walls... This would switch the CoM issue to one of could the properties of the EM field induced in the frustum walls, be pushing off of the resonating EM field itself?
The problem with that idea if I am understanding what you are saying correctly, is that the fields themselves have energy and momentum. The fields cannot net move to the right while the momentum is to the left. Other than the need to use relativistic equations to describe the momentum in the fields, this is identical to a cavity that contains bouncing balls, and the conclusion is the same, the outside of the cavity may vibrate, but the center of mass (center of energy in relativity) won't go anywhere.Since this would also be an almost insignificant EM interaction isolating the affect may require the higher power levels of the earlier magnetron tests.
I believe that sensitivity of tests should best be described in terms of what force/power ratio they can measure down to. Since this ratio is constant and linear in basically every proposal (including what you just described) this makes it a better metric. Tests with magnetrons improved sensitivity by increasing the total power, but usually induced other (thermal for example) problems, which increased the minimum force required to see a meaningful signal. Higher power would be unambiguously better if it is known to work, and the goal is to apply it, but sometimes lower power, but a significantly more sensitive force measurement can be better for showing if the force really exists.It would seem you could only test for the initial surge as the device is turned on with any in lab test equipment. The device would have to be free to move for the two fields to maintain an interaction resulting in a directional force. A device in orbit, or in a lab on a turntable with an inherent resistance to motion (both from friction and perhaps inertia), less than the very small expected anomalous force.
I am not sure how you are getting to that conclusion, and to the extent such a condition could even exist, the torsion pendulums in most experiments should satisfy it. It is similar to some claims from TT/Shawyer, but it makes no sense because the fields in the device cannot tell if the device is moving or not, physics is independent of reference frame, so sitting still and moving at constant velocity have the same results. The fields can tell if the device is accelerating, but the result is that the fields push (very slightly) against the direction of acceleration because they need to "accelerate" too. -
#966 by flux_capacitor on 20 Apr, 2019 19:34
-
Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.
Totally agree about trying to work backwards from patents, so I'll start looking at the papers:• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.
{…}
Thank you for taking time to read the first paper. The numbers given in Pais' example seem way too high indeed for practical use. But what about the claimed effect itself (not quantitatively but qualitatively, or taking other values a few orders of magnitude lower, so more in line with reality)? That is to say, the ability of an electrically charged body to considerably increase the electromagnetic field intensity due to its rotation under very high accelerations (hyper-frequency gyrational effect) on one hand, coupled to its vibration at high frequency (harmonic oscillations) on the other hand, as well as so-called "possible curvilinear translation"?
Dismissing the numbers, you don't seem to address the very substance of the claimed effect, which seems more interesting phenomenologically than the impracticable values given as a hypothetical example aimed to theoretically illustrate the effect.
For example, is the claimed effect backed by some theoretical grounds or data already known; or is is something peculiar that has never been measured yet/is not particularly predicted (as it describes some coupling between several effects), hence would need a dedicated experiment? Even simpler in this case, in four words: we do not know. This may be why you didn't judge the qualitative claims. -
#967 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2019 20:34
-
I am not seeing a claimed effect to compare to. The simple version of the claim is that his device generates high field strengths. If you take away the absurd charge densities then you get that much less field strength (Note that charge is squared in most of the equations.)Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.
Totally agree about trying to work backwards from patents, so I'll start looking at the papers:• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.
{…}
Thank you for taking time to read the first paper. The numbers given in Pais' example seem way too high indeed for practical use. But what about the claimed effect itself (not quantitatively but qualitatively, or taking other values a few orders of magnitude lower, so more in line with reality)? That is to say, the ability of an electrically charged body to considerably increase the electromagnetic field intensity due to its rotation under very high accelerations (hyper-frequency gyrational effect) on one hand, coupled to its vibration at high frequency (harmonic oscillations) on the other hand, as well as so-called "possible curvilinear translation"?
There are 2 possibilities:
1. The equations used in the paper are correct, and would yield the answers consistent with standard electromagnetism. This means that it is just standard electrodynamics, nothing enhanced, and producing the expected charge fields from the charge distribution, and the expected radiation due to accelerating charges, same as any antenna, and therefore requiring power input to drive the motion at least equal to the radiated power. In this case there is nothing new.
2. The equations used are not consistent with electrodynamics. In this case there is no evidence provided in the paper that standard electrodynamics is wrong. Either (2a) the equations are wrong due to a math error, or (2b) due to an assumption of modified electrodynamics, which can't be properly considered since it hasn't been explicitly stated.
I lean towards option 2, because the equations don't look right to me due to missing factors such as anything to account for the fact that the charges closer to the center of the disk have different velocities and accelerations than those closer to the edge.
In both cases, the paper does not say anything interesting, because either it is stating nothing new, and nothing better than what is already known, or it is making a claim about something different in electromagnetism, without explicitly stating what is different (what is different possibly being just a math error). I could work out the fields for this case to determine whether the answer is option 1 or option 2 (whether it is either 2a or 2b only the author could say.) However, I do not have the time or the motivation to do so. If I ever feel like practicing multivariable calculus by solving a set of partial differential equations in cylindrical coordinates, I may come back to this, since it probably is solvable (possibly with Bessel functions.) -
#968 by Bob Woods on 21 Apr, 2019 04:15
-
Pais first paper is from 2015, the second from 2017. If something was there, I would guess it would have been a big deal considering all the attention this forum was getting then.
It got my hopes up, but not for long. -
#969 by RotoSequence on 24 Apr, 2019 20:29
-
Back when this was in full swing, the Navy filed a patent on EM drive type devices as an inertial dampener. The intervening time has not been kind to the plausibility of microwave cavity resonant devices doing anything interesting.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
-
#970 by FinalFrontier on 25 Apr, 2019 02:03
-
Spent a long time reading these threads in silence since the alleged effect was first discovered and it looked really promising at first. But as with many such "discoveries" in the past 20 years it once again turned out that actually there is nothing new under the sun.
IMHO EM drive is debunked. It does not work the desired effects were not reproducible at the stated/necessary level if at all.
Still alot of interesting things to debate and discuss regarding some of the effects seen in testing and modeling these devices but it sure looks dead as a doornail otherwise. -
#971 by Mark7777777 on 25 Apr, 2019 08:10
-
Spent a long time reading these threads in silence since the alleged effect was first discovered and it looked really promising at first. But as with many such "discoveries" in the past 20 years it once again turned out that actually there is nothing new under the sun.
IMHO EM drive is debunked. It does not work the desired effects were not reproducible at the stated/necessary level if at all.
Still alot of interesting things to debate and discuss regarding some of the effects seen in testing and modeling these devices but it sure looks dead as a doornail otherwise.
I was going to say that would mean I guess you wouldn’t think Mike McCulloch’s Quantized Inertia theory is valid since it predicts an emdrive could work. However I did a quick check on his site and see the’ve been working on a light based emdrive and said they have possibly found some thrust.
Here’s a snippet of his April 7 post on http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com:
“So much has happened over the last few months and thanks to my newly-funded collaborators, research into QI is now running on three cylinders instead of one: it was just theory, now the work includes models and experiments as well. My post doc, Dr Jesus Lucio is working very well. I asked him to write a matlab script that simulates wide binaries with ordinary Newtonian physics, and MoND and QI. His script has produced a very nice animation (see below) that shows that when you model a real wide binary, only quantised inertia (red) predicts the stars to be bound together (as they are in reality). Newton and MoND (blue and green) predict wrongly that the two stars should zoom off to infinity, and so they are falsified. He has extended this tool to also simulate the Solar system. It compares the predictions with the observed orbital trajectories. We are having fun simulating Oumuamua at the moment.
The other project I asked him to do is to develop a numerical COMSOL simulation of the asymmetric Casimir effect that underpins quantised inertia (reference 1). The process by which when you accelerate something to the right, say, relativity and the speed of light limit, implies there is a region of space to your left that you can no longer see and a horizon forms that damps the intensified (Unruh) quantum vacuum on the left side of the object leading to a net quantum force that resists the object's acceleration: inertia. Unfortunately COMSOL is having a hard time modelling a particle at the tiny Planck scale (10^-35 metres wide) moving within a cosmos approximately 8.8x10^26 metres wide. So, our first crude plan is to use a particle the size of a galaxy cluster, and then slightly smaller, and we will use the difference to extrapolate down to the Planck scale.
The two experimental teams I employed as part of my funded project are also getting started building light-emdrives. The Dresden team are building resonators, but the Madrid team are already experimenting and have seen some thrust of the hoped-for kind, that is over six sigma outside the noise. However, it will be a long struggle to show it is definitely The Big One. They are now slowly eliminating mundane effects that could also be causing it.
As well as thinking about thrust, I am trying to generalise and further extend QI to explain gravity. After reading a book by A. Unzicker (ref 2), it seems that Einstein may have been on a more QI-compatible course until 1911 when he was redirected into bent space by his geometer friend Marcel Grossman. The variable speed of light version of general relativity (VSL-GR) that Einstein published in 1911 had a flaw at the time, but that flaw was corrected by Dicke (1957) (ref 3) and this version is far simpler and agrees with all the predictions of standard general relativity. This VSL-GR is far more satisfactory to me than normal GR since it relies on a process (slowing photons) that can be measured directly, as opposed to standard GR which relies in bent space, which is an abstract thing that you cannot measure directly, except by virtue of the moving objects it was designed to predict anyway. I have had some success in building a mathematical bridge between quantised inertia and VSL-GR. I am still trying to decide whether the piles I built the bridge on (the assumptions) are solid or not. The best way to do this is to jump up and down on them a lot. I'll let you know if there is a splash.”
-
#972 by RERT on 25 Apr, 2019 13:03
-
A thought...
If we hypothesize that the EM drive works due to some unexplained interaction with gravity, then it is only a very small step further to guess that any thrust will be related to the orientation of the device relative to the gravity field.
In other words, any force might be much larger if the device is oriented vertically rather than horizontally. Indeed, horizontal forces might be only 'edge effects'. However, all the measurements I can recall have been for horizontal forces, except maybe by Shawyer. I guess this is principally to avoid the worst impacts of thermal effects.
Is anyone aware of definitive (null?) measurements of vertical forces in EM-Drive tests? -
#973 by dchill on 25 Apr, 2019 13:23
-
Back when this was in full swing, the Navy filed a patent on EM drive type devices as an inertial dampener. The intervening time has not been kind to the plausibility of microwave cavity resonant devices doing anything interesting.
Maybe the Navy is willing to entertain the possibility that it might work for the same reason they're starting to fund a more systematic recording pilot's observations of unexplained phenomena
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/04/24/how-angry-pilots-got-navy-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings/?utm_term=.5b1d59433e3e
"but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind and no exhaust"
Interesting that this is in the WaPo no less.
-
#974 by JohnFornaro on 25 Apr, 2019 13:43
-
I felt that I needed to channel my inner meberbs, but from an English language viewpoint. Without going too sideways into my idea that language preceded math in humanity's cognitive evolution, I offer an English language translation of this post. Hope it meets with mod approval.
[Editorial note: Mark7777777=MK Final Frontier=FF]Spent a long time reading these threads in silence since the alleged effect was first discovered and it looked really promising at first. But as with many such "discoveries" in the past 20 years it once again turned out that actually there is nothing new under the sun.
IMHO EM drive is debunked. It does not work the desired effects were not reproducible at the stated/necessary level if at all.
Still alot of interesting things to debate and discuss regarding some of the effects seen in testing and modeling these devices but it sure looks dead as a doornail otherwise.
I was going to say that would mean I guess you wouldn’t think Mike McCulloch’s [MM] Quantized Inertia theory is valid since it predicts an emdrive could work. However I did a quick check on his site and see the’ve been working on a light based emdrive and said they have possibly found some thrust.
FF says pretty clearly that EM drive has been debunked in his view. A quick search of the site yields no results for FF and the terms Mike McCulloch, or Quantized Inertia [QI]. There are a few hits on FF and the term Inertia, mostly as "political inertia".Quote from: MKHere’s a snippet of his April 7 post on http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com:
“So much has happened over the last few months and thanks to my newly-funded collaborators, research into QI is now running on three cylinders instead of one: it was just theory, now the work includes models and experiments as well. My post doc, Dr Jesus Lucio is working very well. I asked him to write a matlab script that simulates wide binaries with ordinary Newtonian physics, and MoND and QI.
His script has produced a very nice animation (see below) that shows that when you model a real wide binary, only quantised inertia (red) predicts the stars to be bound together (as they are in reality). Newton and MoND (blue and green) predict wrongly that the two stars should zoom off to infinity, and so they are falsified. He has extended this tool to also simulate the Solar system. It compares the predictions with the observed orbital trajectories. We are having fun simulating Oumuamua at the moment.
MM's post doc is writing a Matlab script modeling stellar bodies in such a fashion as to confirm certain QI predictions, and they are also playing games. Without that script in hand, we cannot know if it is correctly modeling even the QI math. So this can be nothing more than a publicity statement, since it cannot be independently confirmed whether or not the model predicts only its assumptions.Quote from: MMThe other project I asked him to do is to develop a numerical COMSOL simulation of the asymmetric Casimir effect that underpins quantised inertia (reference 1). The process by which when you accelerate something to the right, say, relativity and the speed of light limit, implies there is a region of space to your left that you can no longer see and a horizon forms that damps the intensified (Unruh) quantum vacuum on the left side of the object leading to a net quantum force that resists the object's acceleration: inertia. Unfortunately COMSOL is having a hard time modelling a particle at the tiny Planck scale (10^-35 metres wide) moving within a cosmos approximately 8.8x10^26 metres wide. So, our first crude plan is to use a particle the size of a galaxy cluster, and then slightly smaller, and we will use the difference to extrapolate down to the Planck scale.
MM will be using a galaxy cluster to model a Planck scale particle in a COMSOL routine. Does this not strike even the most casual of scientific observers as an approximation bound for failure because of scalar problems? Without the routine at hand, the scalar problems they are facing cannot be addressed independently. This does not seem to be a sound line of inquiry.Quote from: MMThe two experimental teams I employed as part of my funded project are also getting started building light-emdrives. The Dresden team are building resonators, but the Madrid team are already experimenting and have seen some thrust of the hoped-for kind, that is over six sigma outside the noise. However, it will be a long struggle to show it is definitely The Big One. They are now slowly eliminating mundane effects that could also be causing it.
They're building "light-emdrives" without any understanding of how they might work? There's neither a valid Matlab script nor a valid COMSOL simulation per their own telling. And what are these "mundane effects which are causing it"? "It" being what, exactly? The noise? Does this passage strike the casual scientific observer as being evidence of nothing?Quote from: MMAs well as thinking about thrust, I am trying to generalise and further extend QI to explain gravity. After reading a book by A. Unzicker (ref 2), it seems that Einstein may have been on a more QI-compatible course until 1911 when he was redirected into bent space by his geometer friend Marcel Grossman. The variable speed of light version of general relativity (VSL-GR) that Einstein published in 1911 had a flaw at the time, but that flaw was corrected by Dicke (1957) (ref 3) and this version is far simpler and agrees with all the predictions of standard general relativity. This VSL-GR is far more satisfactory to me than normal GR since it relies on a process (slowing photons) that can be measured directly, as opposed to standard GR which relies in bent space, which is an abstract thing that you cannot measure directly, except by virtue of the moving objects it was designed to predict anyway. I have had some success in building a mathematical bridge between quantised inertia and VSL-GR. I am still trying to decide whether the piles I built the bridge on (the assumptions) are solid or not. The best way to do this is to jump up and down on them a lot. I'll let you know if there is a splash.”
Sadly, this appears to be a word salad which references several famous people and their writings. The casual scientific observer will simply have to wait for the "splash", if ever. -
#975 by JohnFornaro on 25 Apr, 2019 13:46
-
Maybe the Navy is willing to entertain the possibility that it might work for the same reason they're starting to fund a more systematic recording pilot's observations of unexplained phenomena ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/04/24/how-angry-pilots-got-navy-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings/?utm_term=.5b1d59433e3e
"but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind and no exhaust"
Interesting that this is in the WaPo no less.
Just saw that article this morning. Clearly the observed vehicles do not have sails, since they have no "wind". -
#976 by JohnFornaro on 25 Apr, 2019 13:48
-
A thought...
If we hypothesize that the EM drive works due to some unexplained interaction with gravity, then it is only a very small step further to guess that any thrust will be related to the orientation of the device relative to the gravity field.
What? If we hypothesize that EM drives work, then why stretch that hypothesis further, with no cause to believe that the hypothesis itself is correct? -
#977 by as58 on 25 Apr, 2019 15:15
-
I don't know what exactly McCulloch's animation is supposed to represent, but if it is a simulation of some kind of binary it's definitely weird. In Newtonian/GR gravity the objects don't seem to feel any gravitational pull, in (some unspecified variety of) MoND they have a very, very wide orbit and in QI the orbit is tighter with extreme apsidal precession.
-
#978 by meberbs on 25 Apr, 2019 15:39
-
I don't know what exactly McCulloch's animation is supposed to represent, but if it is a simulation of some kind of binary it's definitely weird. In Newtonian/GR gravity the objects don't seem to feel any gravitational pull, in (some unspecified variety of) MoND they have a very, very wide orbit and in QI the orbit is tighter with extreme apsidal precession.
He is looking at wide binaries which supposedly have velocities that don't match up with the predictions of GR, however it is possible that there are unaccounted for errors in the original data this is based on.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13397
Given the results in the paper I just linked, calling GR and MOND "falsified" based on his data is premature at the least. On the other hand, McCulloch has made predictions that if they are true predictions of his theory, mean that his theory is falsified. (for example he claims the Pioneer Anomaly is not due to asymetric thermal radiation, even though the best thermal models show that Pioneer should be accelerating due to asymmetric thermal radiation.) -
#979 by FinalFrontier on 26 Apr, 2019 02:35
-
You can simulate and model all you want. If others beside your own group cannot replicate the data, or worse in the process of doing so they discover reasons for that data to have been contaminated (thermal or magnetic induced effects), then the modeling and simulations are worthless.
You have to prove consistently a reproducible result. That is the problem with em drive, it has been entirely inconsistent and independent research groups that did very detailed very deep dive work trying to replicate what initially was proposed by folks like shawyer have been unsuccessful and have found reasons for possible contamination of results made by the initial supporters.
As far as MM is concerned I wish him and his group luck but John Fornaro said it better than I was going to. To be blunt building something without knowing how it works, not publishing your modeling parameters or how your model even works, and suggesting that you have successfully backed up your own theory with models that exist in the virtual world only, really doesn't inspire confidence.
Don't want to sound to harsh I really admire all the work so many people did trying to run this down, but I feel (in my opinion) based on the data that's out there these things don't work. They might still warrant further study due to some of the bizarre microwave field effects seen in the cavities but as research devices not as a potential future reactionless drives.
: