-
#260 by Alex_O on 19 Apr, 2020 23:05
-
Ok, let's fix it. Magic is a technique of flexible creative thinking. Helps to find a scientific approach to the search for new physics. The term magic is very useful for solving the problem of flying to the stars.
My point that followed after this was that physics simulation tools obey the known laws of physics, so your clarification doesn't change the problems with your previous post.Hello.
Magic is by definition something contradictory to the laws of physics.
In my first post on this forum, I discussed the opportunity to see what happens in the Emdrive resonator in dynamics with nanosecond intervals. I studied this for many days, and I accidentally got a magic case, I want to show it. Take a look
Thanks. Let me clarify your definition of magic a little.
Magic, by definition, contradicts the known laws of physics.
Agreed?For example:
Doesn't inherently violate any laws of physics. Not an example of your definition. (assuming that by "thickness" you mean "atmosphere")
A vehicle for movement in the thickness of the planet at a speed of 100 km/h.
No, I clearly said in the thickness of the planet - 100 km / h for the movement of undergrounds, through solid rocks and in an arbitrary direction.
Another example. The great Archimedes received a smartphone as a gift. What would Archimedes say? I do not know how this will be correct in ancient Greek, but the translation is clear - magic.
This is an entry-level result; calibration using the example of a simple rectangular waveguide shows the correct physics. In another sim, for example, real boundary conditions are set and, for example, there are no sharp edges, but this did not change the shape of the distribution diagram of the integral forces (three peaks saved). But the problem of the side walls (they are not needed, they interfere) has found an original solution. Two antennas and two waveguides (symmetrical) were used to create one asymmetry (in the knee) - this is a good idea.Well-known physical modeling tools should be used, boundary conditions are set correctly. There is a drawback in the simulation shown - end surfaces can ideally radiate RF power, but they cannot reflect this. This is good for starting the study, since it allowed us to see what happens in the waveguide when a short EM pulse moves along it. And what can be if you use different forms of pulse RF power.
Asserting that correct boundary conditions were used does not demonstrate that they were correctly used, and that is just one of many ways that even experienced people can mess up when using good tools.
I studied various forms of short-pulse oscillations and found an interesting option. The reference to zero-point energy is made reasonably. I can immediately ask James (Hello! James) to check the new setting - pass the RF frequency through a suitable diode and feed it into the Emdrive.I also came up with a little trick. Here is the waveform for the upper waveguide and for the lower. The top looks red and the bottom looks blue. Since at the top the amplitude of the pulse varies from 0 to + 5 V, at the bottom from 0 to -5 V, and this is not a harmonic signal.
It seems like you failed to attach something, but from your description don't bother. It does not seem to have anything to do with the topic of this thread, and you are just asserting nonsense about how a model that replicates known physics produces results contrary to known physics, which is fundamentally illogical.
(This is somehow associated with new physics (zero-point energy) as an algorithm to extract something practically useful due to the excitation of non-trivial, non-obvious, non-harmonic signals in Emdrive, just a thought)
The physics of RF reflection from different physical bodies is well known, and the simulator showed everything correctly. I just drew the attention of the audience that an original way of tracing was found. The photons in the two waveguides are completely identical, but the photons, we can say, have a different flavor. It seems very convenient.It was also noted that after reflection of the RF impulse from the end wall, its polarity changes. If plus (red) falls, then minus (blue) is reflected, which is very beautiful and you get a visual trace of the movement of signals from different sources (antennas).
Rather than playing with tools that you increasingly are demonstrating that you don't understand, you could take an introductory course in electromagnetic waves and discover that this is a well known and easily explained property of reflection of electromagnetic waves from a metallic surface. Trying to find things like this from playing around with a simulation is simply one of the most inefficient ways I can think of to learn these things.
I remember what Rodal said https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1549950#msg1549950The simulation was built without real radiating antennas, and the ending of the gif actually looks strange. It seems to be numerical errors. But we see that multiple reflections from the curved walls occur in the bent knee, it seems that there is an echo effect and it seems there is an idea to simulate that it was as if Emdrive was charged (as in the first experiments in Dresden). Do you understand my idea? Even if this is a numerical error - but it suddenly gives a chance to see a non-trivial, fantastic idea.
My interpretation of what you just said is that you don't care if your results are garbage as long as you get a pretty picture that lets you imagine things that would never work in real life.QuoteIf a numerical calculation shows otherwise, this indicates that there is something very wrong with the calculation ("Garbage in = Garbage out") and the source of this error should be explored.
The attached picture shows a sim where the impulse is described by a harmonic function, and the boundary conditions allow reflecting completely from the end walls. No Garbage.[quote
I talked about new physics. That in the crooked knee with the curved walls you can break the jackpot and catch the firebird good luck new physics.If it was a mistake (sensitivity of balance) of an experiment with low RF power? In this simulation, the signal amplitude is set at 5V. An analysis of the radiation pressure forces in the range of 0-10 nanoseconds in the given waveguide geometry (0.25 m * 0.25 m * 1.4 m) demonstrates peak values of the pressure force Fх at the level of 10-12 N. In the diagram of integral forces we see three peaks.
No it can't because again, a correctly performed simulation of the known laws of physics by definition will not contradict them.
1 peak - photon emission, 2 peak - photon reflection in the knee, 3rd peak - photon drop on the left end. And if there is a new physics - then the difference in forces (Emdrive thrust) can be like the difference of the 2nd peak from the sum of the 1st and 3rd peak. This clearly depends on the geometry of the resonator and the waveform. And if the "magic" will work poorly, then the difference in pressure forces may be at the level of 10-13 or even 10-15 N.
If we do not discuss fantastic ideas, then we will never be able to fly to the stars and we will not be able to bang new physics.Here are my simplest arguments. If in the known experiments there was still magic (new physics), and if the geometry of the resonator (and antennas) for creating magic was very poor, then the result - the thrust will lie below the sensitivity of balance.
This is called an unfalsifiable hypothesis, because you can always say that no matter how many high quality null results are produced. It is simply an unscientific waste of time to even discuss that.Yes, yes, well-known physics prohibits Emdrive. But let's look at a new simulation, on the analysis of energy flows. Perhaps thinking about the fact that the speed of light is finite, that Newton’s laws in electrodynamics may not be fulfilled, and let's try to find some magic place in the RF resonator?
Again, when a simulation is based on the known laws of physics it can never give a result excluded by the known laws of physics. It either gives a result consistent with the laws of physics or it is wrong.
One last time with emphasis: It should be obvious that it is a complete waste of time to look for violations of known physical laws by running a simulation that is designed to obey the known physical laws.
Why are you talking about violation of the laws of nature in every message? The search for new physics on the example of Emdrive modeling cannot violate the laws of nature in any way.
Let me emphasize the basic idea. We take the famous physics. We are building a model. We find a useful place in the system where new physics can manifest itself. We add element X, set its properties, find new geometry, new algorithms for introducing energy into the system and algorithms for controlling energy flows, and verify in the experiment.
We look for a useful place in the system where there are contradictions. On the example of a sim - this contradiction sounds like this:
upd
And it seems that this sim suggests that it is bad physics to use harmonic signals for Emdrive. Have you heard such an idea ever?
-
#261 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2020 00:27
-
It looks like you replaced your previous message with one with non-broken quote tree while I was typing this, I'll come back later to check if the replaced message has other differences.
This is an entry-level result; calibration using the example of a simple rectangular waveguide shows the correct physics. In another sim, for example, real boundary conditions are set and, for example, there are no sharp edges, but this did not change the shape of the distribution diagram of the integral forces (three peaks saved). But the problem of the side walls (they are not needed, they interfere) has found an original solution. Two antennas and two waveguides (symmetrical) were used to create one asymmetry (in the knee) - this is a good idea.
"this is a good idea" self-praise like this tends to be inversely proportional to its truth. Your assertions here simply do not inspire confidence that you know what you are doing.
Please just stop with this nonsense, if you are going to ignore everything I say, please don't reply to me. As I bolded in the quote above, you arent even making sense. "zero point energy" is a quantum concept that is not even captured by the type of simulation you are doing.It seems like you failed to attach something, but from your description don't bother. It does not seem to have anything to do with the topic of this thread, and you are just asserting nonsense about how a model that replicates known physics produces results contrary to known physics, which is fundamentally illogical.
I studied various forms of short-pulse oscillations and found an interesting option. The reference to zero-point energy is made reasonably. I can immediately ask Jimmy to check the new setting - pass the RF frequency through a suitable diode and feed it into the Emdrive.The physics of RF reflection from different physical bodies is well known, and the simulator showed everything correctly. I just drew the attention of the audience that an original way of tracing was found. The photons in the two waveguides are completely identical, but the photons, we can say, have a different flavor. It seems very convenient.
More nonsense. The concept of a photon is simply not present in this simulation. It again requires quantum, but this is irrelevant, because no quantum effects are significant on the relevant scales. The physics are well known as you say which is why it is pointless for you to point out well known things as if they were interesting.
Passing just one of many checks does not mean that your results are valid. You are trying to assert that you are getting new physics results from something that can't do so, there are 2 options:
I remember what Rodal said https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1549950#msg1549950The simulation was built without real radiating antennas, and the ending of the gif actually looks strange. It seems to be numerical errors. But we see that multiple reflections from the curved walls occur in the bent knee, it seems that there is an echo effect and it seems there is an idea to simulate that it was as if Emdrive was charged (as in the first experiments in Dresden). Do you understand my idea? Even if this is a numerical error - but it suddenly gives a chance to see a non-trivial, fantastic idea.
My interpretation of what you just said is that you don't care if your results are garbage as long as you get a pretty picture that lets you imagine things that would never work in real life.QuoteIf a numerical calculation shows otherwise, this indicates that there is something very wrong with the calculation ("Garbage in = Garbage out") and the source of this error should be explored.
The attached picture shows a sim where the impulse is described by a harmonic function, and the boundary conditions allow reflecting completely from the end walls. No Garbage.
1. You are not providing new physics results
2. Your results are garbage
I am not bothering to determine for sure which it is, because it really doesn't matter.
No, you are basing everything you have to say on a simulation of existing physics. The results of that by definition cannot be new physics.[quote
I talked about new physics. That in the crooked knee with the curved walls you can break the jackpot and catch the firebird good luck new physics.
No it can't because again, a correctly performed simulation of the known laws of physics by definition will not contradict them.
You aren't reading what I am saying. If you want to discuss new physics you have to come up with a sensible starting point.
If we do not discuss fantastic ideas, then we will never be able to fly to the stars and we will not be able to bang new physics.Here are my simplest arguments. If in the known experiments there was still magic (new physics), and if the geometry of the resonator (and antennas) for creating magic was very poor, then the result - the thrust will lie below the sensitivity of balance.
This is called an unfalsifiable hypothesis, because you can always say that no matter how many high quality null results are produced. It is simply an unscientific waste of time to even discuss that.
Because you keep essentially asserting that the laws of physics are self-contradictory. They aren't. You are searching for new physics in a place where you can never find that: in well understood, self-consistent theories. If you want to look for new physics you need to provide an experiment that plausibly can have new results (i.e. one that isn't well within existing coverage) Or look at the holes and gaps in existing theory, such as quantum gravity.One last time with emphasis: It should be obvious that it is a complete waste of time to look for violations of known physical laws by running a simulation that is designed to obey the known physical laws.
Why are you talking about violation of the laws of nature in every message? The search for new physics on the example of Emdrive modeling cannot violate the laws of nature in any way.Let me emphasize the basic idea. We take the famous physics. We are building a model. We find a useful place in the system where new physics can manifest itself. We add element X, set its properties, find new geometry, new algorithms for introducing energy into the system and algorithms for controlling energy flows, and verify in the experiment.
New physics cannot manifest itself in a simulation that is purely based on on known physics. There is no way to make it produce the results that you want (breaking momentum conservation) other than by breaking the simuation and making the results garbage. There are no other options. Please stop wasting time on this.
We look for a useful place in the system where there are contradictions. On the example of a sim - this contradiction sounds like this:
How to make sure that the 2nd peak is not equal to the sum of the 1st and 3rd peak?р.с. I’m simulating without garbage. I just set the perfect harmonic signal, also an array of red insoles shows the movement of energy flows (as a blank for future analysis of the movement of energy flows in a cavity with standing wave modes).
If your simulation is not wrong, then it does not produce any new physics results period. -
#262 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2020 00:54
-
No, that is not a remotely reasonable definition of magic. You are just changing terms to try to avoid And, as you have done in the past, you are now using "flexible thinking" as an excuse for making logically contradictory statements, and simply ignoring the scientific method. Wishing something does not make it true.
Ok, let's fix it. Magic is a technique of flexible creative thinking. Helps to find a scientific approach to the search for new physics. The term magic is very useful for solving the problem of flying to the stars.Magic, by definition, contradicts the known laws of physics.
My point that followed after this was that physics simulation tools obey the known laws of physics, so your clarification doesn't change the problems with your previous post.
You did not say anything clearly. "Thickness of the planet" is simply not a phrase that has meaning in English. Even with your new definition, you don't provide something that breaks any physical laws, just something that most likely is not possible without some form of new technology, maybe some sort of extreme strength super alloy.
No, I clearly said in the thickness of the planet - 100 km / h for the movement of undergrounds, through solid rocks and in an arbitrary direction.For example:
Doesn't inherently violate any laws of physics. Not an example of your definition. (assuming that by "thickness" you mean "atmosphere")
A vehicle for movement in the thickness of the planet at a speed of 100 km/h.Another example. The great Archimedes received a smartphone as a gift. What would Archimedes say? I do not know how this will be correct in ancient Greek, but the translation is clear - magic.
His understanding would be lacking, but he would not be able to give a single explanation of any physical laws that it breaks.
One more time: you did not talk about new physics, you claimed that you saw new physics in a simulation which by definition and design can not show new physics.No it can't because again, a correctly performed simulation of the known laws of physics by definition will not contradict them.
I talked about new physics. That in the crooked knee with the curved walls you can break the jackpot and catch the firebird good luck new physics.If we do not discuss fantastic ideas, then we will never be able to fly to the stars and we will not be able to bang new physics.
I replied to this in my previous message but just came up with another good counterpoint. If you only work with imagined ideas, and never cross reference them with reality, you will never be able to build or even discover anything let alone fly to the stars.And it seems that this sim suggests that it is bad physics to use harmonic signals for Emdrive. Have you heard such an idea ever?
Any result from the sim that suggests that it is a good idea to even think about building an emDrive would be wrong, so your statement here is consistent, and just a subset of that fact.
It has already been thoroughly proven that the equations your simulation are based on completely perfectly conserve momentum, and will never, ever provide a path to a working emDrive.
New physics is not finding new applications of known physics, but finding new equations and ideas that better explain reality. You will never find this by rehashing the known equations, and new physics is useless if it is a just a conceptual idea or simulation that has not been shown to match reality. -
#263 by trm14 on 20 Apr, 2020 06:07
-
I wonder what those who write simulation software would think if they heard that people are looking for new physics in the numerical errors of simulation results.
-
#264 by Alex_O on 20 Apr, 2020 16:09
-
One more time: you did not talk about new physics, you claimed that you saw new physics in a simulation which by definition and design can not show new physics.No it can't because again, a correctly performed simulation of the known laws of physics by definition will not contradict them.
I talked about new physics. That in the crooked knee with the curved walls you can break the jackpot and catch the firebird good luck new physics.
Well. Thank you. Excuse me if I do not answer exactly, I have to work in Google translator, I prepared the last answer for several hours, since there is no convenient interface for quoting.
I will highlight the main thing and would like to bring to your attention such an answer. In the first sim, there are strange signals at the end of the gif, but there is no mistake. Look again.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49270.0;attach=1621654;sess=57325.
The boundary conditions are set so that the RF impulse cannot be reflected from the left end wall. It was an ideal radiating surface, its main function is to create an ideal plane wave. There is no important part, such as an antenna or reflective surface. The long straight part of a rectangular waveguide is also described in ideal terms. The right curved part is also idelized.
The problem was solved to see how the simulator will cope with the calculation of the motion of the pulse through the waveguide curve. The physics of RF propagation through curved waveguides is known.
The result was surprising.
1) microwave photons somehow “stuck” in the curved part of the waveguide for a long, long two nanoseconds.
2) When the pulse of a plane wave moves in a straight part - at this time the sum of the radiation pressure forces on the lateral (long walls of the waveguide) is practically zero.
3) The strange effects at the end of the gif can explain that it is possible that a small part of the pulse experienced multiple reflections in the curve of part of the waveguide and this part of the system acquired the property of an RF power emitter. But this is at the level of the error of the solver.
There was a simple question or even the idea that such an analysis could show amagicalgood place in Emdrive, where the conditions for new physics are created, where Emdriv’s non-reactive trust can be born.
Why is that? I mentally saw this picture
With your permission, I will call this picture the term "thing."
This thing fills the waveguide, in this thing the RF pulse moves in the waveguide, and in this thing the photons are “stuck” for two nanoseconds. I also mentally saw how this thing created "turbulence" of the energy flow of the electromagnetic field.
I thought that if emdrive can create thrust, then this model of a curved waveguide, where there is such a "thing" - that new physics should be sought here (in the curved part).
In a place where there are swirls of energy flows.
-
#265 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2020 16:44
-
I will highlight the main thing and would like to bring to your attention such an answer. In the first sim, there are strange signals at the end of the gif, but there is no mistake. Look again.
They really do look like a mistake, with asymmetries that are possibly related to the geometry of finite elements used.The boundary conditions are set so that the RF impulse cannot be reflected from the left end wall. It was an ideal radiating surface, its main function is to create an ideal plane wave. There is no important part, such as an antenna or reflective surface. The long straight part of a rectangular waveguide is also described in ideal terms. The right curved part is also idelized.
What you are saying here is that you simply don't understand the boundary conditions. The impedance of free space and impedance of a waveguide are not in general the same, There are different ways to handle boundary conditions for "radiating" versus a perfect continuation of the waveguide.The result was surprising.
With exception of some minor questions, the results look reasonable and nothing is surprising.1) microwave photons somehow “stuck” in the curved part of the waveguide for a long, long two nanoseconds.
You have provided no numbers or dimensions other than this claim of "2 ns" but the actual propagation velocity seems constant, and nothing seems stuck, just typical overlap effects of some interference of the overlapping waves, and possibly exciting of different propagation modes due to the geometry of the intersection, which as expected results in some spreading.2) When the pulse of a plane wave moves in a straight part - at this time the sum of the radiation pressure forces on the lateral (long walls of the waveguide) is practically zero.
This is one of the questionable parts of the sim, it seems you may have created a simulation of a non-practical propagation mode, by forcing a strange initial condition, allowing straight propagation of a plane wave. This may simply be due to the geometry being large compared to the effective wavelength. Doesn't really matter what the answer is, the simulation does not (and cannot) provide insight on new physics.3) The strange effects at the end of the gif can explain that it is possible that a small part of the pulse experienced multiple reflections in the curve of part of the waveguide and this part of the system acquired the property of an RF power emitter. But this is at the level of the error of the solver.
Exactly, anything that does not exactly match known physics in the simulation is a solver error.There was a simple question or even the idea that such an analysis could show a
A simulation of known physics by definition NEVER meets the conditions required to discover new physics. This question is a waste of time.magicalgood place in Emdrive, where the conditions for new physics are created, where Emdriv’s non-reactive trust can be born.Why is that? I mentally saw this picture
I am repeating myself here that picture clearly is titled "quantum fluctuations" I have already stated that your simulation has nothing to do with quantum whatsoever. Attempting to find quantum effects in a non-quantum simulation is absurd. Since I already stated this, and in many other places, you ignore everything I have already said and repeat the same incorrect nonsense, I can only conclude that you have not truly read a single word of any of my posts. I find this behavior to be extremely rude, as you appear to be deliberately wasting my time. -
#266 by RyanC on 20 Apr, 2020 19:58
-
I know I've said this before; but given that STARLINK is now cheap enough for SpaceX to do tons of tests such as albedo modifications to Starlink Satellites; what stops SpaceX from making a one off EMLink satellite off the Starlink bus to see once and for all if the EM drive actually does work via an actual flight test?
-
#267 by RotoSequence on 20 Apr, 2020 20:13
-
I know I've said this before; but given that STARLINK is now cheap enough for SpaceX to do tons of tests such as albedo modifications to Starlink Satellites; what stops SpaceX from making a one off EMLink satellite off the Starlink bus to see once and for all if the EM drive actually does work via an actual flight test?
Facing the same problems as lightsail one. Space is not a pristine environment, and EM Drive's signals are so small, that you'd need to do a lot of accounting of everything from solar radiation to differential thermal expansion to magnetic torque moments from the Earth's magnetic fields just to figure out what's affecting the spacecraft's direction and momentum. -
#268 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2020 23:33
-
I know I've said this before; but given that STARLINK is now cheap enough for SpaceX to do tons of tests such as albedo modifications to Starlink Satellites; what stops SpaceX from making a one off EMLink satellite off the Starlink bus to see once and for all if the EM drive actually does work via an actual flight test?
Because the emDrive has already been disproven over and over again. It is quite clear that there are people who will deny any such result, making up all sorts of excuses. Musk is not an idiot and is not going to waste so much as a minute considering such a thing. As Rotosequence mentions, there is still drag and other forces in LEO, and if it produced enough force to matter there, it could also be tested on the ground. -
#269 by Alex_O on 22 Apr, 2020 19:04
-
Why is that? I mentally saw this picture
I am repeating myself here that picture clearly is titled "quantum fluctuations" I have already stated that your simulation has nothing to do with quantum whatsoever. Attempting to find quantum effects in a non-quantum simulation is absurd. Since I already stated this, and in many other places, you ignore everything I have already said and repeat the same incorrect nonsense, I can only conclude that you have not truly read a single word of any of my posts. I find this behavior to be extremely rude, as you appear to be deliberately wasting my time.
There is no rudeness in my answers. I just did not know how to correctly answer your comments (about magic, about new physics, about quanta, about photons). So I went further, tried to explain the features of the sim. I had time to think and here are my answers.
I used the term magic as a general synonym for the term “new physics”. Since I am inspired by various facts, for example. (It's hard to explain, I'll try to do it)
1) Marc G Millis. Small Provocative Workshop on Propellantless Propulsion
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/09/28/small-provocative-workshop-on-propellantless-propulsion/
2) Physics beyond colliders at CERN: beyond the Standard Model working group report
https://physicsworld.com/a/looking-for-physics-beyond-colliders-at-cern/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2
Marc Millis points to the issue of metrology.QuotePhysicists at CERN are simply discussing 18 different proposals that could be built at CERN in order to “use” the accelerator complex of the laboratory and the scientific infrastructure to search for new physics.
3) Various facts, for example
a) http://www.bazaluk.com/news/solar-storms-affect-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay-on-earth.htmlQuoteAccording to the article, some radiation is generated in the Sun before flares, which affects the decay rate of radioactive isotopes.
b) German physicists accelerated radioactive decay
Accelerating the Spontaneous Emission of X Rays from Atoms in a Cavity
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.097601Quotehttps://elementy.ru/novosti_nauki/164817
c) https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2012/summary/
In a German experiment, a short burst of x-ray radiation passed through a waveguide and transferred iron-57 nuclei to an unstable excited state. After a fraction of a microsecond, this excited state returned to the ground state again with the emission of an x-ray photon of the original energy. However, flying out of the nucleus, this photon is already inside the waveguide, which means it has a slightly different spatial distribution than in empty unlimited space. This was enough to change the probability of decay of the excited state of the nucleus. Relatively speaking, the presence of walls “helped” the nucleus to quickly release a gamma quantum.QuoteThe Nobel Prize in Physics 2012 was awarded jointly to Serge Haroche and David J. Wineland "for ground-breaking experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems.
Quotehttps://elementy.ru/novosti_nauki/431910/Nobelevskaya_premiya_po_fizike_2012
d) Harold White and Paul March discusses the transfer of momentum from a resonator using vacuum plasma.
One of the striking examples of such experiments, performed in the group of Serge Arosh, is an experimental demonstration that the lifetime of a single excited atom can be strongly changed by placing it in the resonator.
An excited atom is in a vacuum, no one “touches” it (the cavity walls are a centimeter away from the atom!), We are not exposed to it by any external electromagnetic fields. We just limit the vacuum around it - and this is enough to prevent or, conversely, contribute to the emission of a photon.
e) Finnish scientists discuss Emdrive in "On the exhaust of electromagnetic" drive AIP Advances 6, 065205 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4953807.
Finnish scientists are trying to explain how Emdrive works and use an extensive bibliography. Within the 6-page article, these guys managed to shove their original ideas - what is a photon, what is a vacuum, what is gravity .. and how can this be useful for Emdrive
And other work. Marc Millis talks about the methodology, CERN physicists discuss new experiments, German physicists used a waveguide to control the state of nuclei, Nobel laureates in physics in 2012 used a high-Q resonator
This inspires me to a methodology for finding new physics (magic) in waveguides and resonators. I can explain this additionally, based on my original interpretation of the laws of development of technical systems. Let's finish with the questions of methodology and move on to the questions of simulation.
With your permission, I am preparing an answer to your last message https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.msg2070839#msg2070839 and plan to show new diagrams. It takes a little time, I will do it. -
#270 by meberbs on 22 Apr, 2020 20:36
-
Yet nothing in your post addresses any of the specifics of what I have already said, so you are continuing the exact behavior that I just said I find rude. (See the bolded statement)I am repeating myself here that picture clearly is titled "quantum fluctuations" I have already stated that your simulation has nothing to do with quantum whatsoever. Attempting to find quantum effects in a non-quantum simulation is absurd. Since I already stated this, and in many other places, you ignore everything I have already said and repeat the same incorrect nonsense, I can only conclude that you have not truly read a single word of any of my posts. I find this behavior to be extremely rude, as you appear to be deliberately wasting my time.
There is no rudeness in my answers.
Most of this post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and certainly none of it addresses the points that I have made to you.
One of the only on-topic parts:d) Harold White and Paul March discusses the transfer of momentum from a resonator using vacuum plasma.
There aren't any valid theories that actually support the emDrive working, issues with things like "vacuum plasma" have been covered in these threads before.
e) Finnish scientists discuss Emdrive in "On the exhaust of electromagnetic" drive AIP Advances 6, 065205 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4953807.This inspires me to a methodology for finding new physics (magic) in waveguides and resonators. I can explain this additionally, based on my original interpretation of the laws of development of technical systems. Let's finish with the questions of methodology and move on to the questions of simulation.
What set of random unrelated things you mashed together to get the incorrect idea that a simulation of known physics has anything to do with new physics is irrelevant. New applications of existing physics are not new physics, and existing physics completely prohibits the emDrive from working.With your permission, I am preparing an answer to your last message https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.msg2070839#msg2070839 and plan to show new diagrams. It takes a little time, I will do it.
You just answered it. Your answer is that you haven't actually read what I wrote. The entire primary point is that simulating existing phjyics will never result in anything that can be described as new physics, and will never produce results that contradict things proven using existing physics.
As long as you think that diagrams are somehow relevant to responding to that point, you haven't understood it, rather than wasting time, just repeat the following which is such a trivial result, it is essentially a definition:
Known physics proves that the emDrive cannot work. Known physics has also been proven consistent, so no simulation of known physics will produce a different result. -
#271 by Chris Bergin on 22 Apr, 2020 21:23
-
If I could remind members not to be rude or uncivil (and then complain when their rude and uncivil response is responded to in kind). Certain long term members here have been warned multiple times and still don't seem to understand how they come across to everyone else.
-
#272 by Unentitled on 25 Apr, 2020 09:06
-
Hope everyone is well. Apologies if addressed in recent weeks, but have we heard any developments regarding any work by seeshells or sonny (or am I misremembering)? The emdrive wiki doesn't seem to be up anymore.
If my memory serves right I recall some work was being done on home test areas at some point.
Would love to hear any updates from experimenters. -
#273 by Mark7777777 on 25 Apr, 2020 09:50
-
Hope everyone is well. Apologies if addressed in recent weeks, but have we heard any developments regarding any work by seeshells or sonny (or am I misremembering)? The emdrive wiki doesn't seem to be up anymore.
If my memory serves right I recall some work was being done on home test areas at some point.
Would love to hear any updates from experimenters.
Seeshells responded recently:Hi Seeshells
Have you still been working on your experimental device lately?
Regards
Mark
Why, yes I am Mark. Thanks so much for asking.
My build for the new lab has slowed down simply because it's winter here at 8,600 ft in the Rockies and while the snows have been a boon for the ski industry it's slowed down construction until the weather breaks a little. But it's MARCH and dang if it's not looking up!
Otherwise I've been doing much reading/research and redesigning of electronics along with working on a paper.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#274 by Monomorphic on 25 Apr, 2020 14:48
-
Hope everyone is well. Apologies if addressed in recent weeks, but have we heard any developments regarding any work by seeshells or sonny (or am I misremembering)?
My understanding is Dr. Sonny White recently left NASA and is now with Limitless Space Institute. https://www.limitlessspace.org/
I too am curious what has happened to all of the Emdrive experiments he built that were the property of NASA. Has he started a new lab with Limitless? -
#275 by Mark7777777 on 26 Apr, 2020 02:54
-
Hope everyone is well. Apologies if addressed in recent weeks, but have we heard any developments regarding any work by seeshells or sonny (or am I misremembering)?
My understanding is Dr. Sonny White recently left NASA and is now with Limitless Space Institute. https://www.limitlessspace.org/
I too am curious what has happened to all of the Emdrive experiments he built that were the property of NASA. Has he started a new lab with Limitless?
Seems they are inviting all sorts of people to apply:
https://www.limitlessspace.org/programs/#RD
Maybe Mike McCulloch will apply.
-
#276 by Bob Woods on 26 Apr, 2020 03:34
-
I noticed this on one web page:Hope everyone is well. Apologies if addressed in recent weeks, but have we heard any developments regarding any work by seeshells or sonny (or am I misremembering)?
My understanding is Dr. Sonny White recently left NASA and is now with Limitless Space Institute. https://www.limitlessspace.org/
I too am curious what has happened to all of the Emdrive experiments he built that were the property of NASA. Has he started a new lab with Limitless?
"Eagleworks: LSI will conduct R&D in laboratory facilities located near JSC exploring dynamic vacuum model."
That may indicate some level of ongoing relationship with NASA. (?) -
#277 by goran d on 28 Apr, 2020 13:58
-
Isn't the force in NASA experiment with the insert approximately equal to (P . grad) E, but with opposite sign? My rough estimate shows it is approximately equal to that.
-
#278 by meberbs on 28 Apr, 2020 14:50
-
Isn't the force in NASA experiment with the insert approximately equal to (P . grad) E, but with opposite sign? My rough estimate shows it is approximately equal to that.
Your statement does not make sense. I don't know what you have defined P as, but the E field is defined throughout the volume of the cavity, and differs at each point, this formula you provided is therefore meaningless. -
#279 by goran d on 28 Apr, 2020 16:55
-
Isn't the force in NASA experiment with the insert approximately equal to (P . grad) E, but with opposite sign? My rough estimate shows it is approximately equal to that.
Your statement does not make sense. I don't know what you have defined P as, but the E field is defined throughout the volume of the cavity, and differs at each point, this formula you provided is therefore meaningless.
P is polarization of the dielectric insert. The total force= - volume integral of (P . grad ) E, where the value is averaged (constant component of a square sine).
In the standing wave, E is approximately zero at the reflecting surface while getting larger some distance away from the reflecting surface. (and P is proportional to E)