Abd,
You are correct that Shawyer does not specifically make any claim regarding space-time . My interpretation should have been clearly demarcated. My intent was to suggest a possible scenario where the EM drive might be plausible - Whether shawyer considered reativistic effects induced induced by the cavity on space time inside the cavity is not mentioned. I think his "closed" cavity is mostly evacuated so we aren't talking the difference between relativistic equations for orbitals in free space vs in a "supressed" cavity, rather, we are considering the equations related to "radiation pressure"? My ideas are based on A 1996 paper " Cavity QED* " by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which proposes the destruction of isotropy inside a cavity, Her work suggests that from a relativistic perspective electrons inside a cavity can appear to occupy the same spatial coordinates and states allowing mathemiticans like Naudts and Bourgoin to format electrons inside the cavity with equations normally reserved for photons. The point that I feel was overlooked by supporters of fractional state hydrogen is that if these equations are used they are defining the orbitals to be in different inertial frames (either approaching an event horizon or inside a "suppressed" cavity). I think Puthoff's atomic model that keeps the orbital from decaying with energy from the ZPF and his supression of spontaneous emission inside a waveguide relates to Zofia's work. My interpretation is that the cavity does not "directly" effect individual atoms or wavelengths but instead bends the space-time upon which they are drawn. we see this in the Casimir effect with a change in the ratio of short to long vacuum flux which QED theory calls up conversion but my interpretation is that there is NO upconversion - we are seeing the same original flux from a "curved " profile making them appear shorter and faster. The space time inside a Casimir cavity is bent effecting ALL matter and electromagnetic spectra painted on that area of space-time fabric in that local part of the cavity. Shawyer's waveguide may be a similar effect using RF waves and geometry to set up the imbalances instead of Casimir effect. IMHO there is always a balance between depletion and concentration zones trying to restore isotropy but what we know about photon supression would suggests that atoms diffused inside a waveguide are "accelerated" and therefore time dilation slows these atoms with respect to us while inside a Casimir cavity gas is "decelerated" with respect to us allowing flux to appear upconverted and suggesting catalytic action is based on this natural effect of conductive geometry. Bourgoin did a paper in 2006 calculating radial velocity of orbitals at different fractional quantum states which is just C divided by n where 1<N<137 which I also interpert as "relativistic" where the orbital inside it's inertial frame is unaware of any change in its' velocity. My whole concept may boil down to a difference in perspective. My relativistic interpretation of "up-conversion" in a Casimir cavity or "down conversion" in a waveguide allows me to use a single concept to explain both Casimir force and suppresion of spontaneous emission in a waveguide. Best Regards Fran ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2009 10:04:25 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Reactionless" propulsion At 09:53 AM 11/8/2009, Frank Roarty wrote: >At 1:14 AM on , November 08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote >To: [email protected]; [email protected] > >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? > >[reply] >Open in the sense that it can utilize energy to displace itself spatially. That's circular, it's using the word very differently. And that sense isn't related to "closed." Closed, in this context, would mean no exchange of matter with its surroundings, nor any exchange of energy except thermally. I found conflicting definitions on Wikipedia. I fail to understand what relativity has to do with "open" or "closed." > A >reaction drive is obviously open where you exchange momentum with an ejected >fuel but you would not call an electric plane reactionless because it is >directing the ambient atmosphere into thrust. >Shawyer is suggesting a >relativistic linkage between his apparatus and space-time such that just >like the electric plane prop he can create a differential inside his cavity >vs outside. He doesn't mention "space-time." He's merely asserting that relativistic equations apply to the group velocity of the microwaves in his cavity. He's not making the claim you state. >...but here in this experiment Shawer claims to >be bending space-time inside the cavity and trying to make it react with >space-time outside the cavity -perhaps space-time can only react with >reshaped versions of itself and this is the elusive oar we are seeking? He makes no such claim. Where did you see that? Looking around, I see that nearly everything I've said here has been said elsewhere. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf Here is the paper that Costella refers to. Indeed, the "error" is obvious. Except I don't think it was an error, Shawyer knows of the objection about the force normal to the wall, he answers it in his FAQ. It was deliberate obfuscation. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf
