EmDrive

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

EmDrive

Unread postby kaublezw » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:19 am

Has anybody looked into the EmDrive theory and data? There seems to be a growing body of evidence to suggest that this device is actually producing thrust. Checkout emdrive.com for some of the theory and results. The inventor insists that no special physics is required to understand the experimental results. Basically Newton plus Special Theory of Relativity makes it happen he claims.

Instead, I'm wondering if this is actually confirmation of Wal Thornhill's suggestion that gravity is the result of an internal deformation of atoms creating small dipoles.

Could it be that the microwaves are deforming the copper atoms on the larger plate such that they are forming tiny dipoles where the negative side is pointing out and the positive side is pointing in the chamber?

If this were true then I should feel an attractive force when I place my hand behind a fixed super-conducting EmDrive that's turned on because the atoms in my hand along with the air molecules would synchronize with the induced dipoles of the chamber.

The EmDrive community is inventing all kinds of complex, wild physics to explain the experimental results. I'm wondering what the Electric Universe theory has to say about it.
kaublezw
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby willendure » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:42 am

willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby upriver » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:42 pm

kaublezw wrote:Has anybody looked into the EmDrive theory and data? There seems to be a growing body of evidence to suggest that this device is actually producing thrust. Checkout emdrive.com for some of the theory and results. The inventor insists that no special physics is required to understand the experimental results. Basically Newton plus Special Theory of Relativity makes it happen he claims.

Instead, I'm wondering if this is actually confirmation of Wal Thornhill's suggestion that gravity is the result of an internal deformation of atoms creating small dipoles.

Could it be that the microwaves are deforming the copper atoms on the larger plate such that they are forming tiny dipoles where the negative side is pointing out and the positive side is pointing in the chamber?

If this were true then I should feel an attractive force when I place my hand behind a fixed super-conducting EmDrive that's turned on because the atoms in my hand along with the air molecules would synchronize with the induced dipoles of the chamber.

The EmDrive community is inventing all kinds of complex, wild physics to explain the experimental results. I'm wondering what the Electric Universe theory has to say about it.


Its simpler than that.
Photons carry kinetic energy and deliver that to the drive walls.

Since the emission in a standing wave is based on emitting from the "aether", it like delivering kinetic energy from a separate object. i.e. Standing on the ground and pushing the drive.
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby willendure » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:43 pm

kaublezw wrote:Instead, I'm wondering if this is actually confirmation of Wal Thornhill's suggestion that gravity is the result of an internal deformation of atoms creating small dipoles.

Could it be that the microwaves are deforming the copper atoms on the larger plate such that they are forming tiny dipoles where the negative side is pointing out and the positive side is pointing in the chamber?

If this were true then I should feel an attractive force when I place my hand behind a fixed super-conducting EmDrive that's turned on because the atoms in my hand along with the air molecules would synchronize with the induced dipoles of the chamber.


The drive seems to be producing thrust but without a reactive force. All very well to try and explain it with dipoles (but if we do that Bengt will be along... :-P), but your dipoles if they really worked would be producing a reactive force on your hand to balance the one accelerating the device. That said, it has not been tested in space yet, where it would have to work at a large distance away from other masses, so presumably not able to induce a dipole in something nearby - so at this stage perhaps we cannot rule out that it is simply making a way to be attracted to some other object in the lab.

I find McCullochs work, bizarre as it is, to be quite compelling. Especially when you take into account that he has no constants in his equations that he can adjust to fudge the results, yet is producing remarkably accurate predictions for a wide variety of inertia/gravity anomalies not just the EM drive.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:04 pm

Image

The EmDrive is a fascinating anomaly. It consists of a truncated metal cone (cavity) with a magnetron inside that inputs EM radiation with the same wavelength as the size of the cavity (it's just like a loudspeaker-shaped microwave oven). It has been shown by three different groups (UK, China, US) that when a resonance is achieved the cavity moves slightly towards its narrow end in apparent violation of the conservation of momentum, since there is no expelled mass to cause this. There was a suspicion that the movement was due to air currents, but NASA have just this last week shown that the same thing happens in vacuo.


The produced micro-wave emission is tuned to resonate with the megaphone dimensions, increasing the Q factor and hence the amplitude of the emitted waveform.
I don't see where it could be a standing wave, like a vibrating guitar string producing a single standing sine wave, but perhaps i'm missing something in McCulloh's description.
In fact, it would seem to be a highly non-linear form, which having been harmonicly amplified, [similarly to light in a lasing crystal or resonant diode cavity], until it is emitted directionally by the cone.
At a macro scale, the the "cones' where propellent is ejected from a rocket engine creates a similar effect.
The interaction of 'wave phase" against sloping funnel shape, being the wave mechanics employed here.

To the hard question, ? what is the microwave emission acting against<> to produce thrust , Upriver's scenario ~reversed
seems plausible. The aetheric matrix can provide an inertial platform or backdrop, upon which the generated microwave radiation may push off (maybe also 'pull to' ? see 2-15-15 comment),
thus inducing motion.
"Dipole" generation can be used to describe practically any energetic transfer/transform in electrical terms, but here is likely a secondary or derivative effect, imo.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.u ... results=33

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.u ... ta-3d.html
seasmith
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby upriver » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:36 pm

seasmith wrote:Image

The EmDrive is a fascinating anomaly. It consists of a truncated metal cone (cavity) with a magnetron inside that inputs EM radiation with the same wavelength as the size of the cavity (it's just like a loudspeaker-shaped microwave oven). It has been shown by three different groups (UK, China, US) that when a resonance is achieved the cavity moves slightly towards its narrow end in apparent violation of the conservation of momentum, since there is no expelled mass to cause this. There was a suspicion that the movement was due to air currents, but NASA have just this last week shown that the same thing happens in vacuo.


The produced micro-wave emission is tuned to resonate with the megaphone dimensions, increasing the Q factor and hence the amplitude of the emitted waveform.
I don't see where it could be a standing wave, like a vibrating guitar string producing a single standing sine wave, but perhaps i'm missing something in McCulloh's description.
In fact, it would seem to be a highly non-linear form, which having been harmonicly amplified, [similarly to light in a lasing crystal or resonant diode cavity], until it is emitted directionally by the cone.
At a macro scale, the the "cones' where propellent is ejected from a rocket engine creates a similar effect.
The interaction of 'wave phase" against sloping funnel shape, being the wave mechanics employed here.

To the hard question, ? what is the microwave emission acting against<> to produce thrust , Upriver's scenario ~reversed
seems plausible. The aetheric matrix can provide an inertial platform or backdrop, upon which the generated microwave radiation may push off (maybe also 'pull to' ? see 2-15-15 comment),
thus inducing motion.
"Dipole" generation can be used to describe practically any energetic transfer/transform in electrical terms, but here is likely a secondary or derivative effect, imo.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.u ... results=33

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.u ... ta-3d.html



Thats what I was saying. The microwaves in the cavity at resonance are like if I was standing on the sidewalk(aether) and pushing on the drive.
If its at resonance there are standing waves...
The "field(photons)" is delivering Kinetic energy to the drive walls.
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby saul » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:40 am

willendure wrote:Take a look at this work:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.u ... ta-3d.html


Interesting.

The thing is certainly reminiscent of the Casimir effect, for which one is also tempted to ask "where is the reactive force??" However, "hubble scale casimir force".. c'mon really? I wouldn't expect this kind of appeal to cosmology to get much traction here.
Last edited by saul on Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby willendure » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:09 am

saul wrote:
willendure wrote:Take a look at this work:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.u ... ta-3d.html


Interesting.

The thing is certainly reminiscent of the Casimir effect, for which one is also tempted to as "where is the reactive force??" However, "hubble scale casimir force".. c'mon really? I wouldn't expect this kind of appeal to cosmology to get much traction here.


I did say his ideas are bizarre - I'd say even weirder than the electric universe because you have to accept a holographic understanding of the universe. However, it is his results that make his work compelling. If it is complete nonsense how is he getting such good results? Perhaps he has the formula right by accident and is just trying to guess at how he got there.

McCulluch is pretty modest it sounds like, I think he is even surprised at his work himself. This is the little guy taking on the established view within its own traditions. I think an EU reader would find that they share his values and so find his work to be interesting.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:26 am

Upriver wrote:
If its at resonance there are standing waves...


Yes, inside the megaphone, hence the amplification.
A cone is obviously not a parallel-walled cavity, so the broadcast/emitted wave formations would be Propagating, not Standing waves.
If they where standing, how would they push off against an aetheric matrix ?

On the other hand, consider a changing wave phase (wave form) interacting with a changing cavity diameter (cone).

https://www.britannica.com/science/stan ... ve-physics
seasmith
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby saul » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:24 am

willendure wrote:
saul wrote:
willendure wrote:Take a look at this work:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.u ... ta-3d.html


Interesting.

The thing is certainly reminiscent of the Casimir effect, for which one is also tempted to ask "where is the reactive force??" However, "hubble scale casimir force".. c'mon really? I wouldn't expect this kind of appeal to cosmology to get much traction here.


I did say his ideas are bizarre - I'd say even weirder than the electric universe because you have to accept a holographic understanding of the universe. However, it is his results that make his work compelling. If it is complete nonsense how is he getting such good results? Perhaps he has the formula right by accident and is just trying to guess at how he got there.

McCulluch is pretty modest it sounds like, I think he is even surprised at his work himself. This is the little guy taking on the established view within its own traditions. I think an EU reader would find that they share his values and so find his work to be interesting.


Well I'm still reading about it :) Thanks for bringing to my attention!

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -40-15.PDF

However it hardly "explains inertia" as advertised, see Eq. 1 in above, or Eq. 1 of

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7007.pdf

where an inertial mass is simply added by hand, and the effect acts as a modification thereof. The casimir effect is absolutely miniscule, and for something with an effective cross sectional area which is small, like a proton - with cavity size scale of "hubble length" there's no way this can explain inertia.

A reduced inertia model at first glance explains galactic rotation, which I find very interesting, however there are no shortage of other theories (aside from CDM) which do so such as (as author points out to his credit) MOND and variants, and also Conformal GR and others. Unfortunately the thing as he presents it seems dynamically unstable. If there is a "minimum acceleration" as he suggests (equal to c^2/hubble distance) from any external source.. then for example stars in the halo of the milky way would also feel the same acceleration towards Andromeda. If this argument is countered by "well, the thing will be towards the largest existing source" then there will always be a larger more local source of acceleration than this minimum, consider e.g. a binary star system in the outskirts of a galaxy. Will the binaries together still feel this cosmic modification of inertia such that they are accelerated together towards the center of the galaxy at this cosmic minimum acceleration? And they don't have to be binaries.. remember every proton in a star is accelerated to every other one, so each of these accelerations ought to out-weigh this cosmic minimum.

The Casimir effect predicts a force inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance between the "plates" and this is assuming they are much larger than the distance between them and perfectly conducting. If you want to see some astronomically small numbers, plug in some cosmological numbers here.

There is also an issue of the timing. When I push an object, it responds instantly. Could that be due to light bouncing off some supposed perfectly conducting boundary 13B ly away?

If this still isn't enough to chew on, remember that it isn't clear at all that there's a boundary of some sort 13B ly away. :D
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby upriver » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:45 pm

If it takes 20 seconds for thrust to develop is this the same as cumulative forces over time ALA Sansbury?

This is nothing more complicated than photons transferring momentum(kinetic energy) to the drive chamber walls.

How is this different than laser tweezers?
With laser tweezers we have always assumed that the reaction forces go back to the laser holder...
It may not be true.

If the 2nd law holds then its obvious the photons are standing on(emitting from) something(like the aether).

No casmir forces or anything like that.
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:57 pm

How is this different than laser tweezers?


It is the opposite.
The tweezers Trap a particle between the 'hills and valleys' of constructively interfering wave forms, producing a "standing wave".
The EmDrive produces Thrust.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby upriver » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:32 pm

seasmith wrote:
How is this different than laser tweezers?


It is the opposite.
The tweezers Trap a particle between the 'hills and valleys' of constructively interfering wave forms, producing a "standing wave".
The EmDrive produces Thrust.



Yep, you are right. I was in a hurry.

"That light can exert forces by pushing objects has been known for a while. But would you have guessed that light can also pull towards the light source, just like the optical tractor beams in Star Trek?"
http://opfocus.org/index.php?topic=story&v=15&s=5
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby willendure » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:49 am

saul wrote:There is also an issue of the timing. When I push an object, it responds instantly. Could that be due to light bouncing off some supposed perfectly conducting boundary 13B ly away?

If this still isn't enough to chew on, remember that it isn't clear at all that there's a boundary of some sort 13B ly away. :D


Yes, which is why I say that it requires accepting a holographic view of reality. By which I mean that the reality of 'space' is nothing more than an illusion, because things that appear very far away must be accounted for when considering what happens here. The effect of the whole visible universe must be considered when working out how inertia determines the mechanics of mass in the local frame.

I was reading recently an idea about why quasars might have different red shifts, if they are palces where new matter is created. The new matter has a smaller horizon around it, because it has not yet hat sufficient time to 'see' as much of the universe as older matter, so its physics is different.
Last edited by willendure on Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: EmDrive

Unread postby willendure » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:55 am

saul wrote:A reduced inertia model at first glance explains galactic rotation, which I find very interesting, however there are no shortage of other theories (aside from CDM) which do so such as (as author points out to his credit) MOND and variants, and also Conformal GR and others.


What is interesting about MiHSc versus MOND, is that MOND is just newtons laws with variables added and tuned to fit the data. MiHSc has no tuning parameters, there is nothing to fudge.

You do point out though that the way it is applied is quite strange. Indeed, if there is a minimum acceleration quanta, which is its vector towards the center of the galaxy about which the start rotates, not some other vector. When McCulloch applies MiHSc to the flyby anomaly, I was similarly confused about how he worked things out there in a different frame of reference with the acceleration vector towards Earth. There is definitely some hand waviness about how he applies his theory to be suspicious of.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests