-
#160 by meberbs on 04 Dec, 2019 19:57
-
Hello ALL! Let me ask you a question - what did I write here above?
I recommend you refrain from looking at his patents. They have been discussed here before, and generally his patents are simply contrary to the laws of physics or otherwise nonsensical.
I accidentally looked today at the Salvatore Cezar Pais patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device"It seems (maybe) I saw the discussion on the forum earlier and readed comments, for example
Thanks for including a link to where I debunked some of the patent claims.It seemed to me that when I mentally made a microwave resonator out of thin copper (maybe 1 atom thick), I mentally saw how the EM field polarizes the vacuum inside and outside the resonator. And today I found similar thoughts in the patent. But I just tried to look at the microwave cavity through the eyes of a physicist in quantum mechanics.
Remember how in that link I provided, insane amounts of energy would be needed for Pais's claims? What you imagine happening in some other situation is not relevant. Your imagination does not necessarily have anything to do with physical reality, and in reality, a 1 atom thick layer would not actually work as a resonator cavity, because most of the photons would pass through without interacting.And I have to ask, what do people know about vacuum polarization? What to think about two options?
As was addressed when the emDrive was originally making headlines, the dynamic vacuum hypothesis is simply not consistent with what the term quantum vacuum is defined to mean.
a) suck a vacuum like a VRD submarine or push like a submarine of Dr. White?b) To cause the pressure force from the polarized vacuum, which is somehow similar to the Casimir force, but there are no two (or a whole pack!) plates?
The casimir effect is another way to calculate the Van der Waals forces between 2 closely space metal plates. These are balanced standard electrodynamic forces, and are simply not a useful starting point for this.Somewhere I read that stones grow from the earth, that the earth (soil) pushes stones from itself. A polarized vacuum may try to push a cone-shaped “stone” out of ... a vacuum?
No.3) This is a long conversation, but if you look at textbooks on the formula for the radiation power of gravitational waves of a rotating dumbbell (or a pair of stars), then the radiation power there depends on mass in the 4th degree and the frequency in the 6th degree and on the speed of light in -5. If we take for rotation the mass equivalent of 1000 J (10-14 kg) and rotate with a frequency of 1012 Hz, then the radiation power of the gravity waves is of the order of 1010 W. I had a suspicion that in the patent this thing from the textbook is hidden (behind a wall of many letters). Given the previously studied works, it seems to me that the author of the patent came up with how not to rotate, but to quickly switch things from a set of electrodes in a system, about 1000 J in size
You seem to have done this calculation wrong. There are other terms in the equation such as the gravitational constant. In GR equations it usually shows up divided by the speed of light to the 4th power, making for a very small number. If you use real equations you find that you don't get significant gravitational waves from a practical system.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Boughn/boughn.htmlQuoteConsidering the inherent weakness of gravity, laboratory sources of gravitational radiation are nonexistent. For example, a 1-ton steel bar spun so rapidly that it is on the verge of being ripped apart by centrifugal force radiates less than 10-30 W.
Using equation 51 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0667.pdf
32/5 * G/c^5*(10^-14 kg*(.0001 m)^2 / 2)^2 *(10^12 Hz)^6 = 4*10^-25 W
(epsilon is set to 1, and a 0.1 mm separation of 2 masses of 10^-14 kg to calculate the moment of inertia.)
Note: you can't rotate something at Terahertz frequency, light itself can only travel 0.3 mm in one cycle of that time. You seem to be assuming that a resonant cavity can be treated like a rotating dumbbell for these purposes, which is not accurate to begin with.
Seriously, gravitational waves generated from anything on a scale that humans can create are completely negligible. -
#161 by The_Optimist on 04 Dec, 2019 20:30
-
And it seems that an experiment performed by Tajmar confirms McCulloch's quantised inertia theory:
It would be a very unusual experiment design if more than one of the cavities was expected to produce a null result. This implies that at least 2 cavities did not produce the expected result, which would make this a falsification, not a confirmation. McCulloch being happy means nothing, since he has demonstrated that he does not understand this concept.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1201613954080026625
Also McCulloch has recently called off by an order of magnitude consistent.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.msg2005978#msg2005978
Also his theory has already been falsified as he predicts the Pioneer anomaly to exist as a gravitational effect, but there is no Pioneer anomaly after correctly accounting for asymmetric thermal radiation.
Baseless speculation on your part in relation to the experimental design and results. -
#162 by meberbs on 04 Dec, 2019 22:03
-
Unless you can provide a reason why they would run 3 separate null tests of different cavity shapes, then my statement is based on the reasonable assumption that they did not waste time and effort on a worthless experimental design. A single test of a cylindrical resonator as a control case makes sense, but using 2 more different shapes that you expect to provide a null result does not.And it seems that an experiment performed by Tajmar confirms McCulloch's quantised inertia theory:
It would be a very unusual experiment design if more than one of the cavities was expected to produce a null result. This implies that at least 2 cavities did not produce the expected result, which would make this a falsification, not a confirmation. McCulloch being happy means nothing, since he has demonstrated that he does not understand this concept.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1201613954080026625
Also McCulloch has recently called off by an order of magnitude consistent.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.msg2005978#msg2005978
Also his theory has already been falsified as he predicts the Pioneer anomaly to exist as a gravitational effect, but there is no Pioneer anomaly after correctly accounting for asymmetric thermal radiation.
Baseless speculation on your part in relation to the experimental design and results.
McCulloch has previously claimed that it would be good news for his theory if either of 2 upcoming tests produced positive results. The reality is that it is bad for his theory unless his predictions are met in both cases. This is the evidence behind my statement that he does not understand this aspect of experimental verification.
The part about McCulloch incorrectly characterizing experimental results as "consistent" with his theory when the data contradicts that statement, is documented fact based on quotes from him.
Nothing in my post is "baseless speculation." -
#163 by mwvp on 05 Dec, 2019 06:18
-
No new physics. The physics and thermodynamics is described by laser/sideband cooling. The system must be tuned on the edge of the red-side phase-slope. The slope of the curve, that is the cavity dispersion, determines the gain over a mere photon rocket, which would be a cavity with the apex totally reflective and the base absorptive, Q=1.
Again, only let photons/RF get absorbed and thermalized after they've been red-shifted delivering a tiny impulse momentum at the apex. Recycle photons based on frequency. Only let the photons out that give a + momentum impulse to the apex and get more absorbptive as the photons get redder and redder.
If there's no new physics, can you tell what happens to momentum when EM Drive starts moving? What balances its momentum so that conservation laws are not violated. And don't say dissipation or thermalisation, neither of those can make momentum magically disappear without new physics.
I presume you mean accelerates when you state, "When the EM Drive starts moving", and when you say "balances momentum", you want to know how momentum is conserved. I suspect you may presume that since action has equal/opposite reaction, then a frustrum with energy bouncing back & forth or counter-propagating is like a mass between springs inside, such that the frustrum will just vibrate back and forth with no net linear motion.
I must say dissipation and thermalization because momentum is a form of energy, as is light and heat. And in this nonlinear system, we have energy injection into a cavity as electromagnetic momentum, exchanging momentum as it scatters off the cavity anisotropicaly, and the cavity anachromatically converting electromagnetic energy into heat - again anisotropically. So you have energy and momentum being conserved as it undergoes this 3-way mixing or scattering.
Unlike a spring-mass inside the cavity, light travels constantly at the speed of light in the cavity, it is relativistic, frozen in time, constant velocity. If light had mass it would appear to change velocity WRT the cavity to an observer outside the system. But light conserves energy/momentum by doppler shift in frequency as it stays at the same speed and frozen in time.
Light does not obey Newton's F=MA. It's velocity doesn't change because it's frozen in time. Think about it. It obey's Planck's gamma = H nu (speed-of-light = Planck's constant X frequency).
This nonlinear system separates and dissipates as heat the negative momentum of counter-propagating radiation, leaving the positive momentum to accelerate, or appear to reduce ersatz cavity inertia. It can do this because it is more lossy at the big end for low frequency.
Checkout the end of the first chapter in Macken's "Only Spacetime" for the math.
http://onlyspacetime.com/
See my earlier posts where I often link to papers on laser-cooling and cavity opto-mechanics, they have the math and details on those systems.
Like laser-cooling, a counter-intuitive phenomena. Who would think an intense beam of light, light which normally makes things hot, could cool atoms down? The coldest and hotest temperatures can be produced. Cavity optomechanical systems are heat engines, in full accordance with thermodynamics like any other engine.
Just try wrapping your mind around the fact that the vibrating cavity swaps momentum with the energy trapped inside, without changing the velocity of the energy. LOL
-
#164 by meberbs on 05 Dec, 2019 07:27
-
I must say dissipation and thermalization because momentum is a form of energy, as is light and heat.
No, kinetic energy is a form of energy. Momentum is a different quantity, which like kinetic energy is related to motion, but unlike kinetic energy, momentum is a vector quantity.And in this nonlinear system,
Nope, Maxwell's equations are linear.we have energy injection into a cavity as electromagnetic momentum, exchanging momentum as it scatters off the cavity anisotropicaly, and the cavity anachromatically converting electromagnetic energy into heat - again anisotropically. So you have energy and momentum being conserved as it undergoes this 3-way mixing or scattering.
Except there is no momentum to exchange to begin with. The net momentum is 0, and energy is not interchangeable with momentum, because again, momentum is a vector quantity.Unlike a spring-mass inside the cavity, light travels constantly at the speed of light in the cavity, it is relativistic, frozen in time, constant velocity. If light had mass it would appear to change velocity WRT the cavity to an observer outside the system.
You got this backwards, light travels at a fixed velocity relative to the observer. In a frame where the cavity is moving the observer would see the light moving towards the back of the cavity at the speed of light while the back of the cavity also is approaching the light at some speed, and these speeds therefore effectively add. (Or subtract for the light going in the other direction.) This is a relatively common mistake in considering relativity. Light always travels at the speed of light in any reference frame, but within a reference frame if you simply determine the observed relative velocity between objects, it works as normal. The extra effects come in when you change reference frames, or observe acceleration.But light conserves energy/momentum by doppler shift in frequency as it stays at the same speed and frozen in time.
This statement does not make sense or actually answer the question of how momentum is conserved.Light does not obey Newton's F=MA. It's velocity doesn't change because it's frozen in time. Think about it. It obey's Planck's gamma = H nu (speed-of-light = Planck's constant X frequency).
No, it isn't because it is frozen in time.This nonlinear system separates and dissipates as heat the negative momentum of counter-propagating radiation, leaving the positive momentum to accelerate, or appear to reduce ersatz cavity inertia. It can do this because it is more lossy at the big end for low frequency.
Again, momentum cannot "dissipate" into heat. That would violate conservation of momentum, because energy and momentum are unlike quantities.Checkout the end of the first chapter in Macken's "Only Spacetime" for the math.
I saw no math supporting your claims there when I downloaded the chapter 1 pdf. I seem to remember coming across this reference before and determining that it tries to argue things that are simply counterfactual. Looking through chapter 1, it looks like there is some correct math surrounded by text that tries provides altered explanations of what these equations mean, in a way that seems to be trying to handwave GR and quantum mechanics together, but that simply won't work. You have to do the actual rigor.
http://onlyspacetime.com/Like laser-cooling, a counter-intuitive phenomena. Who would think an intense beam of light, light which normally makes things hot, could cool atoms down? The coldest and hotest temperatures can be produced. Cavity optomechanical systems are heat engines, in full accordance with thermodynamics like any other engine.
Laser cooling is something developed by scientists who carefully considered the laws of physics, and makes use of things like the quantization of electron energy levels. Pointing to something counterintuitive that is allowed by physics in no way supports the unphysical assertions you are making.Just try wrapping your mind around the fact that the vibrating cavity swaps momentum with the energy trapped inside, without changing the velocity of the energy. LOL
Before discussing this topic any further, please try to wrap your mind around the fact that energy and momentum are not interchangeable. -
#165 by trm14 on 05 Dec, 2019 07:32
-
I must say dissipation and thermalization because momentum is a form of energy, as is light and heat. And in this nonlinear system, we have energy injection into a cavity as electromagnetic momentum, exchanging momentum as it scatters off the cavity anisotropicaly, and the cavity anachromatically converting electromagnetic energy into heat - again anisotropically. So you have energy and momentum being conserved as it undergoes this 3-way mixing or scattering.
Momentum is not a form of energy. Momentum and energy are two different things. Even their units are different.QuoteUnlike a spring-mass inside the cavity, light travels constantly at the speed of light in the cavity, it is relativistic, frozen in time, constant velocity. If light had mass it would appear to change velocity WRT the cavity to an observer outside the system. But light conserves energy/momentum by doppler shift in frequency as it stays at the same speed and frozen in time.
Light does not obey Newton's F=MA. It's velocity doesn't change because it's frozen in time. Think about it. It obey's Planck's gamma = H nu (speed-of-light = Planck's constant X frequency).
No it doesn't. Maybe you're trying to say E=h nu.QuoteThis nonlinear system separates and dissipates as heat the negative momentum of counter-propagating radiation, leaving the positive momentum to accelerate, or appear to reduce ersatz cavity inertia. It can do this because it is more lossy at the big end for low frequency.
Checkout the end of the first chapter in Macken's "Only Spacetime" for the math.
http://onlyspacetime.com/
See my earlier posts where I often link to papers on laser-cooling and cavity opto-mechanics, they have the math and details on those systems.
Like laser-cooling, a counter-intuitive phenomena. Who would think an intense beam of light, light which normally makes things hot, could cool atoms down? The coldest and hotest temperatures can be produced. Cavity optomechanical systems are heat engines, in full accordance with thermodynamics like any other engine.
Just try wrapping your mind around the fact that the vibrating cavity swaps momentum with the energy trapped inside, without changing the velocity of the energy. LOL
Momentum and energy are separate things and they both are conserved. You can't 'swap momentum with energy'. -
#166 by Alex_O on 05 Dec, 2019 11:03
-
Hello ALL! Let me ask you a question - what did I write here above?
I accidentally looked today at the Salvatore Cezar Pais patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device"
I recommend you refrain from looking at his patents. They have been discussed here before, and generally his patents are simply contrary to the laws of physics or otherwise nonsensical.It seems (maybe) I saw the discussion on the forum earlier and readed comments, for example
Thanks for including a link to where I debunked some of the patent claims.It seemed to me that when I mentally made a microwave resonator out of thin copper (maybe 1 atom thick), I mentally saw how the EM field polarizes the vacuum inside and outside the resonator. And today I found similar thoughts in the patent. But I just tried to look at the microwave cavity through the eyes of a physicist in quantum mechanics.
Remember how in that link I provided, insane amounts of energy would be needed for Pais's claims? What you imagine happening in some other situation is not relevant. Your imagination does not necessarily have anything to do with physical reality, and in reality, a 1 atom thick layer would not actually work as a resonator cavity, because most of the photons would pass through without interacting.And I have to ask, what do people know about vacuum polarization? What to think about two options?
As was addressed when the emDrive was originally making headlines, the dynamic vacuum hypothesis is simply not consistent with what the term quantum vacuum is defined to mean.
a) suck a vacuum like a VRD submarine or push like a submarine of Dr. White?b) To cause the pressure force from the polarized vacuum, which is somehow similar to the Casimir force, but there are no two (or a whole pack!) plates?
The casimir effect is another way to calculate the Van der Waals forces between 2 closely space metal plates. These are balanced standard electrodynamic forces, and are simply not a useful starting point for this.
With your permission, I would like to ask for a report on
Dr. David Hyland “An Epitaxial Device for Dynamic Interaction with the Vacuum State.” At 2017 ADVANCED PROPULSION WORKSHOP
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ssiapw2017_01_hyland.pdf
The author suggested "turning on" the Casimir force between a pair of plates in a packet and using fast switching to create movement (energy?) In this foot. The author does not use the term magic in his report. Isn't that magic?Somewhere I read that stones grow from the earth, that the earth (soil) pushes stones from itself. A polarized vacuum may try to push a cone-shaped “stone” out of ... a vacuum?
No.3) This is a long conversation, but if you look at textbooks on the formula for the radiation power of gravitational waves of a rotating dumbbell (or a pair of stars), then the radiation power there depends on mass in the 4th degree and the frequency in the 6th degree and on the speed of light in -5. If we take for rotation the mass equivalent of 1000 J (10-14 kg) and rotate with a frequency of 1012 Hz, then the radiation power of the gravity waves is of the order of 1010 W. I had a suspicion that in the patent this thing from the textbook is hidden (behind a wall of many letters). Given the previously studied works, it seems to me that the author of the patent came up with how not to rotate, but to quickly switch things from a set of electrodes in a system, about 1000 J in size
You seem to have done this calculation wrong. There are other terms in the equation such as the gravitational constant. In GR equations it usually shows up divided by the speed of light to the 4th power, making for a very small number. If you use real equations you find that you don't get significant gravitational waves from a practical system.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Boughn/boughn.htmlQuoteConsidering the inherent weakness of gravity, laboratory sources of gravitational radiation are nonexistent. For example, a 1-ton steel bar spun so rapidly that it is on the verge of being ripped apart by centrifugal force radiates less than 10-30 W.
Using equation 51 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0667.pdf
32/5 * G/c^5*(10^-14 kg*(.0001 m)^2 / 2)^2 *(10^12 Hz)^6 = 4*10^-25 W
(epsilon is set to 1, and a 0.1 mm separation of 2 masses of 10^-14 kg to calculate the moment of inertia.)
Note: you can't rotate something at Terahertz frequency, light itself can only travel 0.3 mm in one cycle of that time. You seem to be assuming that a resonant cavity can be treated like a rotating dumbbell for these purposes, which is not accurate to begin with.
Seriously, gravitational waves generated from anything on a scale that humans can create are completely negligible.
Sorry, it was already late evening and I was a little mistaken. My calculation is based on the same formula, but I chose a mass of 10-14 kg, a radius of 10 m, and a frequency of 500 THz (orange light) and of course I took into account the constant G and got GW.
32/5 * 6.67*10^-11/c^5*(10^-14 kg*(10 m)^2 / 2)^2 *(500* 10^12 Hz)^6 = 2,75*10^9 W
Then I stopped, because I do not see the limit for this function. The frequency can be increased even more and somehow there is no visible limit. What does this calculation mean?
Regarding the resonator, any microwave resonator emits very low-power GW, but the calculation is based on an analysis of the mechanical vibrations of the atoms of its walls with a very small amplitude. At the same time, I did not find a good idea for analyzing the role of eddy currents (if these eddy currents can rotate within the skin layer by analogy with the rotation of a magnetic flux in a three-phase motor. Or I wanted to ask how the maximum speed of rotation of the magnetic flux can be ( EM fields, EM fields can also be rotated?)
-
#167 by cvbn on 05 Dec, 2019 13:50
-
Unless you can provide a reason why they would run 3 separate null tests of different cavity shapes, then my statement is based on the reasonable assumption that they did not waste time and effort on a worthless experimental design. A single test of a cylindrical resonator as a control case makes sense, but using 2 more different shapes that you expect to provide a null result does not.And it seems that an experiment performed by Tajmar confirms McCulloch's quantised inertia theory:
It would be a very unusual experiment design if more than one of the cavities was expected to produce a null result. This implies that at least 2 cavities did not produce the expected result, which would make this a falsification, not a confirmation. McCulloch being happy means nothing, since he has demonstrated that he does not understand this concept.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1201613954080026625
Also McCulloch has recently called off by an order of magnitude consistent.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.msg2005978#msg2005978
Also his theory has already been falsified as he predicts the Pioneer anomaly to exist as a gravitational effect, but there is no Pioneer anomaly after correctly accounting for asymmetric thermal radiation.
Baseless speculation on your part in relation to the experimental design and results.
McCulloch has previously claimed that it would be good news for his theory if either of 2 upcoming tests produced positive results. The reality is that it is bad for his theory unless his predictions are met in both cases. This is the evidence behind my statement that he does not understand this aspect of experimental verification.
The part about McCulloch incorrectly characterizing experimental results as "consistent" with his theory when the data contradicts that statement, is documented fact based on quotes from him.
Nothing in my post is "baseless speculation."
Judging form the tweets it was a result of lack of McCulloch's oversight what Tajmar was doing. Apparently Tajmar did things inconsistent with his theory, hence such results. -
#168 by RotoSequence on 05 Dec, 2019 14:01
-
Judging form the tweets it was a result of lack of McCulloch's oversight what Tajmar was doing. Apparently Tajmar did things inconsistent with his theory, hence such results.
It's premature to say that when there are uncertainties around the degree of scientific rigor employed in testing. -
#169 by meberbs on 05 Dec, 2019 14:21
-
Judging form the tweets it was a result of lack of McCulloch's oversight what Tajmar was doing. Apparently Tajmar did things inconsistent with his theory, hence such results.
As I said, that would be bad experimental design, but I don't see any tweets that support that. I haven't looked through his tweets in detail, since he writes a lot of them and many are just terrible (ignoring the political stuff, he keeps repeating completely untrue assertions about his theory, but the specifics of most of those belong in the dedicated thread we have for his theory.) -
#170 by meberbs on 05 Dec, 2019 16:31
-
With your permission, I would like to ask for a report on
I don't feel like looking at the details of this specific example right now, but the basic concept is not consistent with our understanding of physics or the concept defining the quantum vacuum. While authors almost never call their own ideas magic, this prediction contrary to physics can be described by one definition of the word "magic."
Dr. David Hyland “An Epitaxial Device for Dynamic Interaction with the Vacuum State.” At 2017 ADVANCED PROPULSION WORKSHOP
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ssiapw2017_01_hyland.pdf
The author suggested "turning on" the Casimir force between a pair of plates in a packet and using fast switching to create movement (energy?) In this foot. The author does not use the term magic in his report. Isn't that magic?Sorry, it was already late evening and I was a little mistaken. My calculation is based on the same formula, but I chose a mass of 10-14 kg, a radius of 10 m, and a frequency of 500 THz (orange light) and of course I took into account the constant G and got GW.
Your calculation means nothing, because you have light moving much faster than the speed of light. The maximum separation is c/(pi*f) Here is a calculation taking that into account:
32/5 * 6.67*10^-11/c^5*(10^-14 kg*(10 m)^2 / 2)^2 *(500* 10^12 Hz)^6 = 2,75*10^9 W
Then I stopped, because I do not see the limit for this function. The frequency can be increased even more and somehow there is no visible limit. What does this calculation mean?
32/5 * G/c^5*(10^-14 kg*(c/(pi*500*10^12 Hz))^2 / 2)^2 *(500*10^12 Hz)^6 = 9*10^-20 W
While you could keep turning up the frequency, there are multiple problems with this:
-By the time you get to sufficiently high frequencies to be significant, you would be far past X-Rays and cannot contain that with any materials, and the radius would be smaller than an atom
-Even if you built a donut shaped resonator, the dumbbell model would be incorrect, as the light is spread along a size comparable to its wavelength. either the moment of inertia, the epsilon factor or both would be significantly smaller.Regarding the resonator, any microwave resonator emits very low-power GW,
nit: this is an understatement, rather than "very low," "unimaginably small" is the phrase I would use. -
#171 by Alex_O on 05 Dec, 2019 18:21
-
With your permission, I would like to ask for a report on
I don't feel like looking at the details of this specific example right now, but the basic concept is not consistent with our understanding of physics or the concept defining the quantum vacuum. While authors almost never call their own ideas magic, this prediction contrary to physics can be described by one definition of the word "magic."
Dr. David Hyland “An Epitaxial Device for Dynamic Interaction with the Vacuum State.” At 2017 ADVANCED PROPULSION WORKSHOP
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ssiapw2017_01_hyland.pdf
The author suggested "turning on" the Casimir force between a pair of plates in a packet and using fast switching to create movement (energy?) In this foot. The author does not use the term magic in his report. Isn't that magic?Sorry, it was already late evening and I was a little mistaken. My calculation is based on the same formula, but I chose a mass of 10-14 kg, a radius of 10 m, and a frequency of 500 THz (orange light) and of course I took into account the constant G and got GW.
Your calculation means nothing, because you have light moving much faster than the speed of light. The maximum separation is c/(pi*f) Here is a calculation taking that into account:
32/5 * 6.67*10^-11/c^5*(10^-14 kg*(10 m)^2 / 2)^2 *(500* 10^12 Hz)^6 = 2,75*10^9 W
Then I stopped, because I do not see the limit for this function. The frequency can be increased even more and somehow there is no visible limit. What does this calculation mean?
32/5 * G/c^5*(10^-14 kg*(c/(pi*500*10^12 Hz))^2 / 2)^2 *(500*10^12 Hz)^6 = 9*10^-20 W
While you could keep turning up the frequency, there are multiple problems with this:
-By the time you get to sufficiently high frequencies to be significant, you would be far past X-Rays and cannot contain that with any materials, and the radius would be smaller than an atom
-Even if you built a donut shaped resonator, the dumbbell model would be incorrect, as the light is spread along a size comparable to its wavelength. either the moment of inertia, the epsilon factor or both would be significantly smaller.Regarding the resonator, any microwave resonator emits very low-power GW,
nit: this is an understatement, rather than "very low," "unimaginably small" is the phrase I would use.
You have shown that if a solid body moves in a circle at the speed of light, then with a frequency of the order of 10^12, the radius of the circle tends to zero. But I remember that with a laser pointer you can draw a circle in the sky (on the clouds), and the speed of drawing can be greater than the speed of light. I also saw a lot of discussion about variable inertial mass.
Therefore, I had a question - what will happen if I shoot (for example) from an electron gun, 10^12 times per second (with an energy of 1000 J in each shot), but using the fast scanning subsystem of the electron beam of a high-frequency oscilloscope. The screen will be the movement of a mass wave. It will be very similar to spinning a dumbbell, it seems to me, right? -
#172 by meberbs on 05 Dec, 2019 18:44
-
You have shown that if a solid body moves in a circle at the speed of light, then with a frequency of the order of 10^12, the radius of the circle tends to zero. But I remember that with a laser pointer you can draw a circle in the sky (on the clouds), and the speed of drawing can be greater than the speed of light. I also saw a lot of discussion about variable inertial mass.
That is apparent motion, not real motion since nothing there is actually moving faster than light. Creation of gravitational waves requires real motion.Therefore, I had a question - what will happen if I shoot (for example) from an electron gun, 10^12 times per second (with an energy of 1000 J in each shot), but using the fast scanning subsystem of the electron beam of a high-frequency oscilloscope. The screen will be the movement of a mass wave. It will be very similar to spinning a dumbbell, it seems to me, right?
Not similar at all. The beam itself would just end up as a continuous stream due to wave particle duality and the number of electrons involved for any practical setup. Even if you get it to not be a continuous stream, you still just have individual packets of matter moving at sub-light velocities, and still not producing significant gravitational waves. It seems that you are imagining what it would look like if you only looked at the electrons in some 2D slice roughly perpendicular to the motion, but it matters that there is matter just outside that slice, not just the matter you see inside the slice.
At this point we have been completely off topic for a while, so if you come up with an actual practical setup that you think would be somehow useful (either an advanced concept or new physics related to spaceflight), post it in a new thread. -
#173 by The_Optimist on 06 Dec, 2019 07:48
-
Unless you can provide a reason why they would run 3 separate null tests of different cavity shapes, then my statement is based on the reasonable assumption that they did not waste time and effort on a worthless experimental design. A single test of a cylindrical resonator as a control case makes sense, but using 2 more different shapes that you expect to provide a null result does not.And it seems that an experiment performed by Tajmar confirms McCulloch's quantised inertia theory:
It would be a very unusual experiment design if more than one of the cavities was expected to produce a null result. This implies that at least 2 cavities did not produce the expected result, which would make this a falsification, not a confirmation. McCulloch being happy means nothing, since he has demonstrated that he does not understand this concept.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1201613954080026625
Also McCulloch has recently called off by an order of magnitude consistent.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.msg2005978#msg2005978
Also his theory has already been falsified as he predicts the Pioneer anomaly to exist as a gravitational effect, but there is no Pioneer anomaly after correctly accounting for asymmetric thermal radiation.
Baseless speculation on your part in relation to the experimental design and results.
McCulloch has previously claimed that it would be good news for his theory if either of 2 upcoming tests produced positive results. The reality is that it is bad for his theory unless his predictions are met in both cases. This is the evidence behind my statement that he does not understand this aspect of experimental verification.
The part about McCulloch incorrectly characterizing experimental results as "consistent" with his theory when the data contradicts that statement, is documented fact based on quotes from him.
Nothing in my post is "baseless speculation."
Confirmation bias on display here too.
“Reasonable/makes sense” comments are you interpreting* results in a way that suits your opinion.
Let’s wait for the facts to be presented, if we ever get them.
*Edited to change interested to interpreted... -
#174 by meberbs on 06 Dec, 2019 08:06
-
Confirmation bias on display here too.
Confirmation bias is when McCulloch claims that an order of magnitude off is consistent with his theory or generally his claims that his theory actually works when there is solid evidence contradicting his theory.
“Reasonable/makes sense” comments are you interesting results in a way that suits your opinion.
Let’s wait for the facts to be presented, if we ever get them.
We will most likely get the data from Tajmar eventually, the issue is McCulloch's statements have 0 credibility. And the original post here was inappropriately drawing conclusions from McCulloch's unreliable statement. Unless he provides predictions before the experiment is run, he has demonstrated that he is an unreliable source. -
#175 by cvbn on 06 Dec, 2019 17:03
-
McCulloch claims to be writing a paper about those experiments, so we will surely see that data when they are published. Tajmar asked him not to reveal that data now.
-
#176 by cvbn on 08 Dec, 2019 23:13
-
McCulloch encourages everyone to do this experiment:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1202900018581127176 -
#177 by Vlad Kri on 09 Dec, 2019 15:05
-
McCulloch encourages everyone to do this experiment:
McCulloch cone is as erroneous as the truncated EM Drive cone
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1202900018581127176
There is a huge mistake in proving the photon momentum. This mistake is so great that they do not see it, because it is so obvious. I have all the necessary evidence, but I can not demonstrate it. Because my English is weak. And my academic English is none. And when I improve my English to High intermediate I will first correct this error in physics in the concept of a photon.
Today I do not have money to continue experiments and study. But I'm not going to give up, because I have no right to retreat. And first of all, I will prove that the photon does not carry momentum. No experiments are needed here. I just destroy the evidence used by those who believe that it is.
And now just think about the fact that there is not a single physical device or machine that uses the effect of a photon pulse. And at the same time, torsion scales for measuring the gravitational constant are available at many universities. But they measure approximately the same impulses.
Now look at my GRAVITSUP and you will see that this is the same photon compressor as in laser tweezers. Unfortunately, I am not capable of anything else to help you. Yes, I have no words to explain my knowledge. But if you look carefully at my examples, you will understand that I know something very important.
I now have several projects of unsupported movement engines, both based on classical physics and on new physics. But no magazine will accept articles from me with their description. I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. I'm so sorry. -
#178 by meberbs on 09 Dec, 2019 15:34
-
McCulloch encourages everyone to do this experiment:
This is an absurd request, ignoring that it is lacking in lots of important details about the cavity design (which would be small with tight tolerances for a resonant cavity at IR frequencies, unless he means any tapered cavity even if it is so mush bigger than the wavelength that the laser will not even reach the sides ever.)
The biggest issue is that as observed on this thread over the years, building something that can reliably detect less than 1 uN is essentially impossible without a specialized lab that most engineers and physicists simply don't have access to. I think after years of work Tajmar is approaching that level of detection ability. The only thing a message like his accomplishes is conveying to his supporters a false impression that his theory is easy to prove, supporting his claims in other tweets of a conspiracy among scientists to defend GR. -
#179 by JohnFornaro on 09 Dec, 2019 15:55
-
McCulloch encourages everyone to do this experiment:
This is an absurd request, ignoring that it is lacking in lots of important details about the cavity design...
Thank you. I clicket on the twit thread earlier this morning, and spent... well, wasted, a half hour reating down thru the comments, and composing a reply.
Mike McCulloch: "Try this: fire a 2W IR laser into a tapered internally-reflective copper cavity on a balance & look 4 the thrust of ~0.2 microN that #QI predicts."
I hate to rain on their parade but: Sheesh.
