At 06:07 PM 11/7/2009, Frank Roarty wrote:
Abd,
I have to take exception with your arguments. The claim is the EM
drive is an "open" system based on Relativity.
What does that mean and how does it apply to the emdrive?
You can't say " free fall in deep space, so that gravitational fields are
uniform."
I defined that as an experimental condition, a thought-experiment, as
it were. So, yes, I *can* say it. If the emdrive is not operating, it
would behave in that space like any other lump of matter, right? Or
do you disagree?
The cavity claims to break that uniformity.
It breaks the uniformity of gravitational fields from the rest of the
universe? Huh?
Even when you say F=ma
remember that "a" is going to be dilated inside the cavity.
Eh? "a" refers to the acceleration of the mdrive system as seen from
a non-accelerating frame. At relativistic speeds, yes, a declines
(not "dilates"), but we are not talking about relativistic speeds for
the emdrive system. Inside the cavity, what's travelling? Hint: it's
not accelerating, it travels at constant velocity no matter what the
frame of reference is.
If the EM cavity
really allows a break in gravitational isotropy where the gravitational
field inside the cavity is shielded to different degrees from the ambient
external field then you have the potential for a cavity teeming full of
different inertial frames see Cavity QED
http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf.
Apparently it is not only Shawyer who is good at blarney. What about
the emdrive would cause any shielding effect at all? It's not
claimed, and there is no reason to expect it, nor to need it as an explanation.
"A cavity teeming full of different inertial frames." An "inertial
frame" is not an object, it's a concept or a definition, similar to
"coordinate." There is no limit to the number of coordinate systems.
So ... what is being said here?
Calculations for
stacked Casimir cavities by Di Fiore et all resulted is an inconsequential
force opposing gravity in tiny stacked Casimir cavities but The EM drive
uses an external RF energy source so it may allow more force via radiation
pressure and even some directional thrust by moving these frames as a
function of relative motion to the widening cavity. My bet is that this
"radiation pressure" inside a closed waveguide creates moving suppression
modes that sweep in frequency proportional to geometry. If this were myth
busters I would rule this one as somewhat plausible.
It is possible that with a certain background the above paragraph
would have decipherable meaning. However, when I look closely at the
paragraph, there are clues that it, too, is a joke, a jape. I'm not
sure who is playing this joke on whom, but what is mentioned is an
"inconsequential force." What's an inconsequential force? If there is
no "consequence," on what basis do we call it a "force" at all? It's
an oxymoron.
