61–70 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no proof will ever be enough for some? Are EM-Deniers going to be a 'thing' now?
If it can accelerate forever, thats proof enough for everyone. However violating the conservation of momentum is a Big Deal. Mathematically that shouldn't be possible due to Noether's. The bar to proof is therefore very high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it can accelerate forever, thats proof enough for everyone. However violating the conservation of momentum is a Big Deal. Mathematically that shouldn't be possible due to Noether's. The bar to proof is therefore very high.
General relativity doesn't conserve energy in some spacetimes, so it's not unheard of.
I hope we'll find out in practice: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-dri... (via lobster_johnson) "Proud to say that we have a partnership now - so the launch is already funded, and we hope to get a launch slot in 2017."
Being in space doesn't solve the problem of errant forces completely. You can push against the earth's magnetic field, for example.
Anybody know anything about the quantized Unruh radiation -> inertia theory?
If they have two versions of the resonant cavity, one that is tapered and one that is just a simple cylinder that to me would be a big step in the right direction to address many of the concerns. Basically the cylinder with no taper should show zero thrust. And the version with the taper should show a thrust. Then if they test that setup inside the huge Apollo program vacuum chamber far away from the side walls and c…
We don't know if the taper does anything though. If we don't have a working theory we can't really use variations of the working device to prove anything.
Wow, I've not read something like that in a long time. More news needs to be like this. Examining what we know presenting where we are. Not taking sides and polarizing the discussion. I do think people miss one small aspect of this story. How long has it been since we've had a device built that we've no understanding of the principles of it's operation? I think that's an amazing fluke and (if the effect is genuine) s…
There are others. There's cold fusion. There's a strange effect by which a rotating superconductor appears to induce gravity.[1] (Whatever happened to that? Articles from 2002-2006, then nothing.) They're all down near the noise threshold. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.h...
If they have two versions of the resonant cavity, one that is tapered and one that is just a simple cylinder that to me would be a big step in the right direction to address many of the concerns. Basically the cylinder with no taper should show zero thrust. And the version with the taper should show a thrust. Then if they test that setup inside the huge Apollo program vacuum chamber far away from the side walls and c…
We don't know if the taper does anything though. If we don't have a working theory we can't really use variations of the working device to prove anything.
Wow, I've not read something like that in a long time. More news needs to be like this. Examining what we know presenting where we are. Not taking sides and polarizing the discussion. I do think people miss one small aspect of this story. How long has it been since we've had a device built that we've no understanding of the principles of it's operation? I think that's an amazing fluke and (if the effect is genuine) s…
There are others. There's cold fusion. There's a strange effect by which a rotating superconductor appears to induce gravity.[1] (Whatever happened to that? Articles from 2002-2006, then nothing.) They're all down near the noise threshold. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are others. There's cold fusion. There's a strange effect by which a rotating superconductor appears to induce gravity.[1] (Whatever happened to that? Articles from 2002-2006, then nothing.) They're all down near the noise threshold. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.h...
There was another paper about 15 years ago where a electrically pulsed, superconducting thin film was able to displace a pith ball from tens of meters, through walls. I can't find the paper but it was on arxiv. Some sort of gravity pulse; weird shit.
> Thin superconducting films are predicted to be highly reflective mirrors for gravitational waves at microwave frequencies. The quantum mechanical non-localizability of the negatively charged Cooper pairs, which is protected from the localizing effect of decoherence by an energy gap, causes the pairs to undergo non-picturable, non-geodesic motion in the presence of a gravitational wave.
It's so near the noise threshold. Most of the energy goes into heating the thing; only a tiny fraction comes out as possible thrust. The heating prevents using enough power to get more possible thrust; the thing would burn out. Very frustrating.
If we had any idea how they work (if they work) we could work on optimised designs that generate more thrust and are thus easier to study. But we're not yet anywhere near the stage and instead have to study a design that if it works, is so inefficient that we can hardly tell whether it does anything. Very frustrating indeed
Tube filaments are quite different than lamp filaments - tubes need a material where electrons are easily emitted from the surface. Tungsten is good for lamps but terrible for tubes. A little thorium oxide or barium oxide helps a lot. But there was no theory to indicate in what direction to go, and it took 30 years before trial and error produced results.