John Berry wrote:
On 9/17/06, *Wesley Bruce* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again.
John Berry wrote:
snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-)
Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be
effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance
lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article,
There was no indication they used it as a way to save the
conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as
bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical
basis for believing in the effect.
Not quite doppler effect but a good analagy. If the front plate is
accelerating relative to the compound wave frount velocity the
wave front will peak a few nanometers behind the plate. Hense no
push if the plate is moving.
My solution (though I loved your rowing idea) was to increase the
microwave frequency, increase the length of the chamber coupled with a
good constant rate of acceleration so it can again produce as much
thrust as if it were stationary, this should still work with your view?
Catch is its several frequencies building a wave formation that travels
fractionally faster that the photons in the wave its self. Drifting all
the frequencies up a few Herz would not work easerly. you would run into
harmonics and shift beyond microwaves, etc. That why the rowing idea
works the emdrive is acceleration but is also stationary because the
back force you apply with your 'oar' matches the forward force on the
emdrive.
But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially
Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then
how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case?
Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter
it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything.
I prediced the results for Podklenovs second set of experiments
back in 1998. There should be no counter reaction, it is a
reactionless drive. We need to get a small one to the sapce station!
oops typo spetted in the 'Space'. :-D
I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves
through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether
flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the
ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a
budget.
Close but the second device is not spinning so the beam or field is not
toroidal. The ZPE hitting the Bose electron (a 20 cm cooper 'pair' of
billions of electrons) is absorbed but because the wave states of the
Bose electron is shared the emitted ZPE can't be random. All the ZPF
wave packets must emit in the same direction at the same time. Because
the Bose electron is trapped (pined) in a boundary layer between a
superconducting layer and a resisting layer a few microns thick it can
only recoil in one direction and it can thus only emit in the opposite
direction. This makes a beam of ZPE several mega joules that is in
effect lased ZPE Perpendicular to the plane of the Bose electron. The
rest of the interactions with matter are basically out lined in
Stochastic electrodynamics theory. See
http://www.calphysics.org/research.html
I know that there is a time delay between the arc and the beam which
others have pointed out is consistent with an aether theory.
I think the arc/ visual effects are secondry.
I would be interested as to how you predicted it.
I was reading a lot of work from Haich, Rueda and Puthoff on stochastic
electrodynamics at the time. Puthoff stated that the point partons
absorbed and emitted ZPE randomly as part of the "zitterbewegung". I
simply realised that that must apply for a larger bose condensate of
electrons ( several billion Quarks trapped in a plane )but it cant be
random. I can't do the math so the idea is going no-where.
Morton had a different theory regarding beams from accelerating charges.
Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the
conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is if we just assume
there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of
equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even
though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it
should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the
conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet.
ZPE is the basis for all the theories, mine and Dr Modanese's and
thus all the theories on Podkletnovs work are notionally
conserving energy. I suspect the Emdrive will in the end also be
found to be interacting with ZPE.
snip
The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent
sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional
although plenty of relativists are slowly coming to such a
conclusion. (it allows FTL travel)
cool where are the papers?
Just look for frame dragging.
They accept outer galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of
light but that's ok cause space time is moving with them.
They will eventually turn it back into an aether theory.
It's only an issue of magnitude of how readily space time can be
dragged around by matter.
The real question, as with all science, is How do you design an
experiment that invalidates the key hypothisis of C - of - E.
As I've said earlier I can argue that the conservation of energy is a
philosophy, an observation which sometimes is broken and in most math
it is conserved but not all as in the example I gave earlier in this
thread where it is broken by time delay.
It is hard to have a reactionless propulsion without breaking the
conservation of energy, and as I reject the idea Robin and Kyle are so
comfortable with that leaves only one possibility (that I'll accept)
that energy is being balanced by ZPE.
And at that point you can't disprove the possibility that energy no
matter how logical it might appear that it is being created in a
certain device, no matter how much excess energy is generated you
can't be sure it isn't vanishing from some mysterious unseen near
infinite storehouse of energy.
And it does make the point rather moot, a philosophical issue only
that can't really ever be proven one way or the other absolutely.
What are your assumptions and if ZPE is real and usable as energy
and reaction medium does that save C - of - E. Then we start all
over again asking the question but now we must exclude ZPE
experimentally.
I see a long and fruit full life for the consevation of energy
debate.
Indeed, but I don't believe it can be excluded really.
Yep.
In the end I think it is closer to an issue of faith, faith in
abundance and creation or faith in rigid laws because once ZPE is fair
game there is no proving either side, not that there ever was.
The Universities put a lot of faith in some things: random chance, their
assumptions, their teachers and call such guess work proven, probable
or Law. Yet they barely grasp the consept of faith at the same time. As
for 'Abundance and creation' there lays a dozen more debates.
