"Impossible" EM space drive?

It's junk. The "theory" ignores the effects of photons hitting the sides of the tapered wave guide. If you include this, you will recover the fact that electro- magnetism, and QED, are exactly conservative. No extra momentum out in any way.

Since this system does not purport to have any new physics, "that's all" she wrote. Socks

In message , Benj writes

No, he read the paper.

which is evidently misapplied.

If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them (including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically) self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.

I've started building my own model of it to see if it really does work and have run into a problem.

My output transistor is connected to the copper cone as a heatsink. There is frost forming all around my power transistor and the added weight of it is throwing the thrust measurement off.

Since the thrust will be very weak I decided to just hang the engine from a couple of strings to see if it pushes its self forwards. I ran two strings for the corners of my unicorn's cage so that the motor would hang exactly in the center.

I made the holes to hang it from by using a drop of the universal solvent so that I wouldn't leave stresses in the metal. I took the dropper out of the bottle and dropped a drop of it in each corner.

When the frost forms, it shift the center of gravity so the motor moves and I can't tell if there is any thrust.

This is exactly correct. However, in such a case one would expect the person to 1. actually read the paper including the references. and 2. find the exact location where the error was made and then write those equations down saying, "look, this guy is a moron!". But that isn't the usual thing in science. See the post of MooseFET below. It's just a bunch of crap of no substance. His basic argument underlying all the "fun" is that this paper is so ridiculous that we don't even need to read it to know the author is "insane". But this should be no surprise given the clownish name "MooseFET" he posts under.

So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum". That argument only says "I'm a lazy fool!". That immediately places you in the list of candidates for person who was the largest moron and who did the MOST to embarrass physics by saying really stupid things. You know, that list that includes Tesla's professor who "proved" that a motor could "never" be built without a commutator, and the French "experts" who affirmed that heavier than air craft could never fly. Jeeze, how can the public ever trust "science experts" again?

The bottom line here is that anyone who argues that this device "cannot" work because momentum isn't conserved is a moron. The very existence of the device (thruster) implies that somehow momentum isn't being conserved! So, the real question is could this device actually work. The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator- less electric motors "impossible". The true question is NOT "is this possible"? Let us assume for the purposes of science that ALL THINGS are "possible". The real question is "how does one do this?" If one can't do it, then that only means you don't know how to do it, not that it is impossible!

So the bottom line here is that the claim of the author that this device relies upon some relativistic effect to obtain a differential in radiation pressure on the two ends of the cavity is the ONLY argument that needs attention. Is this true or not? Only a examination of his relativistic equations would give the answer. Invoking violation of conservation of momentum does not! I haven't examined his equations. I actually try to avoid all discussions of who is "smarter than Eisnstein" and relativity. And so far I haven't seen anybody else point out where his relativity is in error either.

So what is the crux here? Say we have a cavity with radiation inside it. HE says that if you taper the cavity, the EM radiation inside has a different velocity at one end than at the other. HE says that by relativity this means the radiation pressure on one end is different from that one the other end. Could this possibly be true? What if we had molecules in there instead? Note as they get closer and closer to the speed of light they get larger and larger mass. SO, one might suggest that if molecules banging into one plate are heavier than those banging into the other plate there is more momentum transferred in a given direction. This sounds like it wouldn't work, but can only be proved wrong by a detailed examination of the forces. So far I haven't done that, and I haven't seen anybody else do it.

This whole thing is one more "force glove" idea. This is the "popular science" concept that one could build a "glove" you put on that generates unidirectional forces that you can push over a building with. So is momentum always conserved by Newton's laws? Nope. Is there always an equal and opposite reaction of forces as a result? Nope. Why? Because Newton's laws are not causal, that's why! As Jefimenko explains, if I have two bodies in space attracted by their gravity, the forces of each on the other balance, but as soon as I move one, it takes TIME for that change to be transmitted from one to the other. This leads to an unbalanced situation. It's a unidirectional force. It's a "force glove"!!! Put relativity into this mix with changing masses and all the rest and now what is going on? This will take some thinking!

OK?

I've started building my own model of it to see if it really does work and have run into a problem.

My output transistor is connected to the copper cone as a heatsink. There is frost forming all around my power transistor and the added weight of it is throwing the thrust measurement off.

Since the thrust will be very weak I decided to just hang the engine from a couple of strings to see if it pushes its self forwards. I ran two strings for the corners of my unicorn's cage so that the motor would hang exactly in the center.

I made the holes to hang it from by using a drop of the universal solvent so that I wouldn't leave stresses in the metal. I took the dropper out of the bottle and dropped a drop of it in each corner.

When the frost forms, it shift the center of gravity so the motor moves and I can't tell if there is any thrust. =============================================== You could try a Peltier junction on the unicorn. I had a unicorn in heat and it mated with a griffin, the offspring was a flying rhinoceros.

On Oct 1, 11:07=A0am, Benj wrote: [snip]

Don't accept it. Get as much cash as you can obtain, mortgage your home, borrow money from loan sharks, and give it all to the people working on this thing. With no contract or promises.

I need the laugh.

Being lazy isn't the same as being a fool.

The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism. A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes

Being lazy means that I'm not interested in doing the homework of these knobs. I've *done* my homework, and don't need to repeat it. The proof is exact.

When you figure out the difference between what *those* knobs were doing (making bad approximations) and the mathematic proof that EM is conservative, do come back and offer an apology.

Well, of course, the device does *not* exist. What they have is a lot of wire and plates and such, and it does not work.

Asked and answered. No, it could not work.

Near as i can tell, no sensible person has said that not having seen it is the reason we won't see it.

We won't see it because it depends on EM, and EM is an exactly conservative force.

Well, you assumed it was possible. You know what happens when you assume, right? You make an ass out of u and me.

Well, you anyway.

When I was a kid, there was a farmer down the road with a field that was divided by a roadway. He had this clever tunnel thing that let the cows walk from one side to the other without crossing the busy road.

This farmer was convinced that if he could get the cows to walk through that tunnel the right way, he could get more cows out than went in. He would spend hours counting cows on each end, never losing faith. No matter how many people told him that walking through a tunnel didn't change the number of cows, he remained convinced.

One day, a cow went in the tunnel to be in the cool shade. And while in there, she gave birth. Eventually she emerged with her new calf. See? said the farmer. See? The tunnel made me another cow! I'll be rich. After that, there was no talking to him. He would not listen to any talk about bulls and pregnancy and gestation and so on. He insisted that it was the tunnel.

Well, the thing is, unless you slip in a little bull, your cows are not going to produce extra cows, tunnel or not.

And unless you slip in a little bull, EM isn't going to be non-conservative. That is, unless you put in physics beyond EM, you won't make this "space drive" work. Tunnels do not change the number of cows. Socks

Why? He can come to the same valid conclusion with far less work by following the method you agreed with above. If the conclusion is inconsistent with the premises, you don't need to examine the details to know that they are wrong.

Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does _that_ argument say?

(As an aside, no, I don't know. People often cite these mythical figures, but rarely give names and dates or verifiable references.)

So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?

You've seen it? Done the measurements to verify that claim?

If he'd published a paper saying "experiment has determined that thrust can be produced in excess of what the standard theory predicts", it would be a different story, and the question would be whether we were seeing experimental error (or a badly designed experiment), fraud, or genuinely new physics. But that isn't the case here: his argument claims new and inconsistent results from standard physics, not any new theory.

None of which is relevant to the actual claim being made here.

Of course it does. Momentum is conserved in special relativity just as much as in Newtonian physics. Regardless of the details, the conclusion is inconsistent with the premises.

For a definition of "velocity" that applies to macroscopic wavepackets, not photons.

According to relativity the energy and momentum of a photon have a fixed ratio, c. And for the duration of the photon's life, both are constant.

Photons don't behave like that, so you're now into idle speculation.

Go laugh at Tesla (In case you forgot, the man who invented the 20th century, easily proved with his list of patents, let alone the others he influenced) Or go laugh at the Wright brothers. You can join the knobs who embarrassed physics with their stupid pontifications. Before you get yourself all worked up, I hope you noticed that I am not supporting the conclusions given in this paper, I am QUESTIONING them.

It's possible to be both. That usually occurs with someone (like you) too lazy to actually do the work but then shoots off their mouths with conclusions based on nothing (like you).

Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you? OK? Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in physics you are WAY behind the curve.

Being lazy means you are sitting on your fat over-paid ass pontificating using undergraduate level understanding while pretending that you know it all. Maybe it fools undergrads and the PBS audiences, but it doesn't fool me. It's being lazy. If you were one third the brain you think you are, you'd take a few minutes to read the paper, point out the errors in the theory (I mean in DETAIL not with some professorial BS hand-waving) and get all our respect. If you are too lazy to do that then you ought to respect science enough to keep your mouth closed.

"Bad approximations"? I don't think so. They doing JUST what you are trying to do. Apply limited understanding to a totally new way of thinking. They grabbed their undergrad course notes, checked all the information in there they took down verbatim from the prof, and immediately came to a sensible, but totally wrong, conclusion.

Of course, the device does not exist (as far as we know) but in trying to understand something someone claims is a new concept, you have to approach it with the assumption that it MIGHT work and then you have to ask "how"? If you want to wait until a number of others have verified the thrust etc. of the device, fine. But you ought to keep your pie hole shut until something is tested one way or the other. To simply say it's impossible without any information, just announces to the world that you know nothing about how science works.

So. It's settled then. Heavier than air craft simply don't fly and induction motors don't exist. Glad we have your opinion on that. Personally I'll wait for someone with the knowledge to examine the relativity arguments to tell me it can't work. Excuse me if I don't trust the opinion of someone too lazy to even read the paper before forming an opinion. Do you know the difference between dogma and science?

You really won't give up, will you? You are determined to make yourself look like a moron in a world-wide forum. Allow me to suggest you go back and hit the books again. Maybe this time go a little bit beyond the freshman class notes. Go look up the term "non-conservative fields". Here's a little quote for you Dr. "genius":

"With special arrangements, a nonconservative field can be set up so that the energy accumulated in a complete circuit by a unit of charge is available as kinetic energy".

Moron.

And you assumed it was impossible.

Rats, you beat me to it!

Oh sure, real cute. Your class is laughing like mad (at you!)

Let's see how this story measures up to YOUR attitude. You (and everybody else) starts with the obvious assumption based on dogma and little else that it is "impossible" for cows to multiply in a tunnel. The farmer says you are wrong and of course you make fun of him and no doubt suggest he construct a "tinfoil" helmet. Real "constructive" criticism, I'm sure. And then, lo and behold the DATA proves you dead wrong. The data staring you in the face says point blank that you are a moron and the farmer is correct! Sure at that point a lot of "jokes" and hand-waving is done to save your face, but the fact is that your lazyness in failing to even consider that the farmer just MIGHT be correct, led you to a whopper of an error: missing the fact that cows can give birth. So you end up playing the fool and the foolish farmer who really didn't understand all that "science" that you did was proved smarter than you. And why not? You were guided by "faith-based phsyics". You just parroted dogma, the farmer on the other hand was not limited by dogma. In fact he may have even heard stories (which doubtless you would have dismissed out of hand) of OTHER tunnels where cows multiplied. The farmer was not in a straight jacket of his own knowledge as you were. Which is why he made the discovery and you ended up looking the fool.

See? There you go again. Go read my discussion of non-conservative fields. And anyway, you've cleverly started to shift the tunnel story from cows multiplying in the tunnel to the tunnel CAUSING the cows to multiply. You've done that, of course, to try to make your position seem more "correct" after the fact. But we see what you are trying to do here. A bunch of Bull and clever manipulations with words only means that you'll make a lot more money if you give up science and go into politics. I think you've got what it takes for that. And in that arena, it turns out that voting for bills you haven't read is not considered bad form.

Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics student? Have you even taken a calculus course?

How does the waters momentum take a corner in a pipe Eric? If I have a pipe with a corner and it is blowing out gas in space. Does it spin only or does it also move away from the direction it flows before the corner?

Does the momentum take the corner?

Turbulently.

If the flow is not perfect, there dispersion of fluid won't be homogeneous and there will be net thrust in a particular direction. How much, I have no idea however that's the way it would be.

Most of the thrust will be parallel to the pipe axis, and the degree of which it will be true depends how far the joint is from the exit. More specifically it depends on the viscosity of the fluid and how long it takes for laminar or near laminar flow to be restored.

Think about it. While doing that, consider an answer to this question: What the f*ck does this have to do with anything?

Mentioning Tesla too often is a sure sign that... you need to put your tinfoil hat back on. Or aluminum hat, whatever cures your particular delusion.

Aren't you the one who figured out I mop floors at Burger King for a living?

But I do recognize the importance of a calculus course given your established fact that math is more real than reality.

I snipped most of the interchange because I see a pattern in the above that has been replicated in some other postings. The pattern (and error) is in establishing an equivalency between Maxwell's Equations and those of Newton.

We know that Maxwell's Equations (when we understand that they are descriptive and not causal) appear to provide a complete description of EM phenomena.( I say "appear" because there seem to be some "glitches" when we try to apply them to the classic double slit experiment. The keyword is "Plasmons." But that is probably for another thread.)

However, Newtons laws do not have this robust behaviour. This is because Newtons laws do not include any terms that are related to relative motion, acceleration or rotation. Heaviside in 1893 noted the similarity between Maxwell and Newton. He suggested that forces analagous to magnetism were probably present in the world of graviutation. Others have followed, noting that there are instances when -- using Newton's *static* laws, momentum appears NOT to be conserved. An explanation of this is way beyond the scope of this post. For a full explanation and derivation of a *potential augmentation* of Newton, please see Jefimenko's "Causality..." book and the follow-on book "Gravitation and Cogravitation."

So, let's try to be cautious when we affirm the equivalence of Maxwell and Newton. 'tain't so!

Cheers!

Bill

The "catch 22" in your logic is that he is using established dogma to make the leap. The proposed result seems to violate established dogma. Therefore the argument is circular and worthless. Only hard data and detailed examination of the proposal can be valid.

It's the "handwaving" part that is the fundamental question here! In particular one has to ask the question if relativity can produce a differential in radiation pressure by reason of differences in wave propagation velocities. My point is and has been that if the author is simply handwaving then it should be simple to look at his derivation and say, Hey! Look right HERE, this is a bunch of handwaving! But as far as I can tell nobody (me included) has bothered to do that. Everybody is arguing that establishment dogma says this can't work, therefore, it's impossible. People have argued that non-conservative fields do not exist, even though I quoted a major E&M textbook that says they do. And Gisse of course added that such statements by me are to be ignored because I'm uneducated and ignorant. (never mind that I personally knew the authors and studied under them). TheM of course goes further saying that my statements are all to be ignored because I'm insane. Proof of insanity being that I told a story regarding Tesla. So you tell me, are Gisse and TheM on the right track here? Are libelous accusations without any proof the way science was meant to be done? Will a little taste of the rack, induce me to renounce my views? Inquiring minds want to know.

Are you saying that these "deniers" don't exist and are fictional? The professor story is in Tesla's biographies (Not good enough? ) The statements about heavier than air craft being "impossible" are all over the scientific literature of the age if you bother to dig back (as I have!). I've seen this SO much in science it makes me want to puke. It's the standard ploy to "prove" that you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've had knock-down yelling matches with geologists arguing with me, saying that the "theory of uniformity" was absolute unassailable, irrefutable FACT! And that I needed a "tinfoil" helmet, and mentioned Velikovsky too much, and had no education in geology etc. etc. But gee suddenly there was a whole body of undeniable evidence that the old dogma was not only wrong but just plain stupid! And guess what? Why, nobody actually EVER thought the theory of uniformity was actually correct. Maybe a few "mythical" clowns supposedly supported it, but no "real" scientist ever did. All those arguments I had with these clowns? Guess what? They actually never happened! Just ask them! These guys ALWAYS knew the "theory of uniformity" wasn't always correct. Feh.

Cute politics, but very bad science.

It means you damn well better check his work closely which is exactly what I've been suggesting.

Obviously not, Mr. "head of the debating team". The question is about his THEORY, not the existence of the device, of course the device DOES supposedly exist (there's a picture of it) The question is about the measurement of forces it might generate. But as I have been stating over and over, I am NOT trying to defend the validity of the device. I am questioning whether the authors explanation of it is in error. All the people saying that the device is "impossible" without even reading the explanation of it, clearly have no leg to stand on.

So new and inconsistent results from standard physics is not possible in your opinion? Never read any Jefimenko I take it? I hate to be the one to point this out, but physicists are human and often get just as sloppy and lazy and anyone else. Just using quick and dirty assumptions instead of the actual "standard physics" true calculations. For example, it's just too easy to ignore causality. It's just too easy to say that the magnetic field outside a long solenoid is always zero. Never mind that statements like these are both ignorant and dead wrong by standard physics. So this is a lesson that quick and dirty "rules" that declare this or that is "impossible" are ALWAYS suspect. Statements that this or that is "impossible" like all the predictions about what science will be like in the future (got that household robot washing your dishes yet?) are always popular and the height of stupidity. That anyone can defend them with a straight face is even WORSE!

Sorry but this is EXACTLY the point! Your and MooseFET's claim that it's totally valid to declare phenomena and theory "impossible" based on scientific dogma and that one actually doesn't need to read and understand a theory to be able to assert that the author is not only wrong but insane, seems just a tad "unscientific" to me. And I'll be specific as to why. If you make a claim of "impossiblity" based upon standard science dogma there is the underlying assumption that science today knows all there is to know about mathematics (the ultimate reality) as well as it's child the physical universe. Such claims are easily observed by anyone outside the science community to be obviously false. The assumption underlying your assertions is that science today is NEVER wrong, NEVER makes mistakes, and has ZERO wrong assumptions about the nature of reality. And you are sitting there with a straight face trying to get everyone to buy this whopper! Give us a break, please. We are not the PBS audience here.

Ok. fine. Then point to the place in his theory where he makes this mistake. Simple. But I believe that your argument is that it's valid to simply pontificate that something is "wrong" without actually taking time to read and understand what is being said. If it's BS it should be a small matter to prove it for someone with the understanding of physics at your level, right? So why all the resistance? Lazy?

Valid point. OF course since nobody is quite sure what a "photon" actually is I find it interesting that people are claiming to "know it all" about this theory.

See, now THIS is the sort of discussion that I expected with respect to this "theory". It certainly is a much better and more valid argument than to say fields are always conservative (which is obviously false).

Yes, I know that and it is idle speculation as you say, but since when is idle speculation prohibited when kicking around some purported "new" theory or at least some "new" interpretation of "standard physics". I'm thinking, of course, what if there is a plasma inside this cavity? I think it's an interesting question. You apparently think it's heresy and perhaps taste of the stake might discourage such evil speculations. But then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Oh now heres a truly useful contribution. Lessee. Tesla never existed. He never invented anything of value. All the inventions the cranks attribute to him were actually done by others first. I'm glad you set us straight on this point.

And now you seem to have some evaluation stating that I am suffering from delusional mental illness. Could you be more specific? Perhaps you could reference the appropriate sections of the DSM-IV for us? And while you are at it, please list your psychiatric credentials that give you the authority to perform such a diagnosis.

Obviously you are one of the "clowns" I spoke of in the opening post.

On Oct 2, 12:59=A0am, Benj wrote: [snip]

You should consider getting competent medical therapy. You clearly have some bolts not completely tightened.

Actually, it's more than possible you don't have *any* bolts completely tightened. Socks

AHA! It has to do with thinking about it. Apparently you did not "really" think about it or you would not ask what it had to do with. :)

In message , Bill Miller writes

The "Newton's laws" referred to above are the three laws of motion, not his gravitational law, which is irrelevant to this discussion.