On 9/17/06, Wesley Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
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.
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 would be interested as to how you predicted it.
Morton had a different theory regarding beams from accelerating charges.
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.
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.
Indeed, but I don't believe it can be excluded really.
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.
ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again.
John Berry wrote:snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-)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.
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.
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?
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!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 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.
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 would be interested as to how you predicted it.
Morton had a different theory regarding beams from accelerating charges.
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.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.
snip
cool where are the papers?
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)
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.
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.
