Jones, Good points, thanks. Not sure he took into account the fact of .7c speed in the fiber optic cable.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 8:51 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Jack Cole > > > > Mike McCulloch has come up with a way to test his MiHsC theory, which he > has applied to the EM Drive. I have some skepticism about the EM Drive > based on some negative reports that I have read, but more testing is > needed. Anyway, at least McCulloch has developed an idea for an experiment > that would falsify his theory and would be an amazingly simple drive system > for spacecraft if it works. He proposes using a simple loop of fiber optic > cable with a metal barrier on one side to dampen Unruh waves. > > http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html > > > > Jack, > > > > There are possible problems with this approach which should be mentioned. > One problem was coincidentally mentioned here a couple of days ago – the > “preferred frame” (and aether). I did not comment on this when it was > posted, since it opens up a Pandora’s box. The other problem is that light > in a fiber optics cable travels about 30% slower than lightspeed (however, > specialty optics could become available soon, to mollify that problem). > > > > A preferred frame is inherent in any definition of “aether” and its > existence applies to the EM drive measurement - in the form of a number of > baseline assumptions depending on how it is to be measured. Wiki has an > incomplete entry on the Michelson/Morley experiment which is said to > invalidate aether, but in fact did no such thing. When the experiment was > repeated using lasers, 100 years later (Silvertooth) – aether was found, > roughly as had been predicted. A few modern observers have offered lame > excuses to keep M&M in place, but the issue is not yet closed, and > consequently we should NOT assume the absence of aether. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_loyzL9Wi4 > > > > In short, in theories that presume that light travels at a fixed speed > relative to a detectable aether, the “preferred frame” would be where > aether appears stationary and we must include the local vectors. But if > light was travelling slower in a cable, you compound the problem and might > believe there was acceleration where it doesn’t exist, or if aether does > not exist we have the inverse problem. Amazingly, the majority of > fizzicysts still quote the M&M mistake as if it meant something today - and > blindly ignore the implications of real aether and a preferred frame, on > measurements of this kind. > > >
