Francis X Roarty wrote; "Mainstream has no issue with relativistic contraction
and dilation at near C ...at what "ALWAYS" appears locally to be the speed of
light since the local observer is unaware of the dilation or contraction as he
approaches C." Is this just an issue of taking things for granted because it IS
the mainstream thought? At half the speed of light the time dilation noted by
T(motion) = T(stationary)/[sq rt(1-(v/c)^2)] therefore T(motion) = T
(stationary)/sq rt(3/4) or a 15.5% time dilation in movement compared to the
stationary one. If two radio stations @ 200,000 hz are made to separate in
space at velocity C/2 the non relativistic doppler effect will show each
station now recieving 100,000 hz. If we view one of the radio stations as being
the stationary one and apply the time dilation to the moving stations reception
the 100,000 hz would appear 15.5% greater at 115,500 hz. (100,000 cycles in
.866 sec = 115,473 hz. ) The amount of time dilation does not appear to
neutralize the non relativistic doppler effect. If this were to occur the
200,000 hz could send and receive with no Doppler effect, and a broadcast of
200,000 hz would be received at that frequency, despite the relative movements
in space, with time distortion made as the consequence of experimental
observations. Why should the relativistic doppler effect even exist in the
first place if all observers see the same value of C due to the change in the
observers time frame?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effectNow also consider if
the moving radio station broadcasts it's 200,000 hz signal using the compressed
time reference to the stationary one. THE 200,000 cycles/sec emitted in a
single compressed second does not have the same amount of cycles received as
reception when compared to stationary cycles per second for the simple fact
that we have now proposed to use the compressed second as the measuring stick,
instead of the stationary one made on first enquiree. Using the original
200,000 oscillations as a single pulse of one compressed second we find that
these same oscillations are now spread across 1.15 seconds of stationary
reception, BEFORE the Doppler effects themselves half that value making it
100,000 cycles per sec. Having seen the truth that we cannot simply compare
seconds of both systems and form a ratio we find that the stationary system in
one second of IT'S time frame will receive only 1/1.15 or 86.95% of the total
waves emitted from the compressed time source or 86,950 hz. Note ALSO that
these GAIN (115,500 hz/LOSS 86,950 hz) ratios are non symmetrical from the
median 100,000 hz predicted by conventional Doppler effect. The same thing
happens in the mutual inductance effects of interphasal multi timed sources(3 &
6 phase), and unlike a single source where what goes up equally goes down in
making opposite mutual inductances; what goes up does not go down by an equal
amount on account of the phase rotation in time, which can be viewed as a sort
of magnetic ether wind. Those winds even counter rotate on planes during
(multiple phased) air core extractions of transformations. I submit that the
Doppler effects are symmetrical, but the time distortion effects are NOT, and
that a confusion as to what relativity involves has taken place. This is noted
in the following reply to
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/28/rossi-e-cat-x-can-produce-electricity-and-no-heat/#comment-2547399970
teslafy DrD • 2 months ago We already have a method of harnessing time
dilation via "localized relativistic effects" http://reactive-input.beforeit...
DrD teslafy • 2 months ago Some one there clearly doesn't understand special
relativity. Time contraction is symetrical, as hard as that is to grasp. So
both the supposed stationary observer and the supposed moving observer will see
the others time contracted. Yes, it's only special, not general relativity in
operation. The entire article is based on a missundertanding.
Thus I state the misunderstanding itself is at hand for examination; and also
that a bird in the hand is better then two in the bush! Sincerely HDN
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:48 AM, "Roarty, Francis X"
<[email protected]> wrote:
#yiv9470473787 #yiv9470473787 -- _filtered #yiv9470473787
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9470473787
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9470473787
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9470473787
{font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}#yiv9470473787
#yiv9470473787 p.yiv9470473787MsoNormal, #yiv9470473787
li.yiv9470473787MsoNormal, #yiv9470473787 div.yiv9470473787MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9470473787 a:link,
#yiv9470473787 span.yiv9470473787MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9470473787 a:visited, #yiv9470473787
span.yiv9470473787MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9470473787
span.yiv9470473787EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9470473787
.yiv9470473787MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv9470473787 {margin:1.0in 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv9470473787 div.yiv9470473787WordSection1 {}#yiv9470473787
Axil, I agree but think some engineering is required to avoid cancellation of
spatial forces, all the anomalous regions are unlikely to favor one spatial
axis over another without some organized self assembly, otherwise it which
would mostly cancel out or in the case of the EM drive, need geometrical
constraints to force a bias. I do however think a raw reactor could very easily
demonstrate variable drag on the ether when placed on a beam balance and
weights are thrown into the opposing scale, IMHO a battery operated “on”
reactor in the scale basket would delay the balancing action compared to an
“off” reactor in the same basket. This would also give a better reading on how
much traction is available before we try to focus it in any specific direction
to unbalance normal reactionary forces. Just occurred to me but an “on” raw
reactor in space should actually cause orbital decay as the ship is now linked
to regions in a different inertial frame creating friction to normal
displacement – the EM drive may create push using microwave energy but I think
reactors are basically an energy capture system and as such oppose the natural
flow of VP and unless we reverse the design away from OU and intentionally over
drive them in some manner will always act more like ether brakes than ether
drives. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 11:44 PM
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Has the 'impossible' EM drive being tested by NASA
finally been explained? | Examiner.com Here is the reference that explains
the justification for this statement: "Unruh radiation is the same as
Hawking radiation by the equivalence principle." Hawking radiation, Unruh
radiation and the equivalence principle http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5564
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:
Assuming the radiation emitted by a LENR reactor is hawking radiation, it might
be possible that the LENR reactor will accelerate in its frame of reference
because it changes the nature of the vacuum in its frame of reference relative
to the inertial frame of the universe. Hawking radiation makes virtual
particles into real particles. Simply stated, if acceleration produces Unruh
radiation then Hawking radiation will produce acceleration, if Unruh radiation
is the same as Hawking radiation by the equivalence principle. A LENR
reactor in space will produce a reactionless drive. On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at
10:24 PM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.examiner.com/article/has-the-impossible-em-drive-being-tested-by-nasa-finally-been-explained
