[split] Norm against downvoting (and a little about the EM Drive)

  • It wouldn't be so strange, because in nature everything is related to everything. In my experience the boundary phenomena are usually related, because the seeming violation of one physical law implies the violation of many others. Which is the reason, why the breakthrough findings come in waves - the only problem is, what can we deduce from this correspondence principle. In this moment I can see no analogy between EMDrive and LENR, except that both system rely on longitudinal waves of vacuum.

  • My suspicion is that the mechanism underlying the EM Drive and what is going on in LENR are related.


    From current theories and evidences, there seems to be no relation.


    EmDrive theories involves relativistic effects, quantum vacuum/energy, cosmology...
    LENR involves quantum coherence and emerging pseudo-particles, better approximation of QM computation in atom, new/replacing QM theory...
    Michael McCulloch would like to connect both...


    anyway I'm conservative, so most disruptime theories are not on my list.
    [moderation]I have split this off-topic - AlainCo[/moderation]

  • Theoretically if the LENR would produce the magnetic monopoles and tachyons, it could behave in similar way, like the EMDrive at very local scale. According to my theory of LENR this is because the vacuum density along long lines of nuclei changes faster than the speed of light spreading in this environment, so that the Maxwell's conditions aren't fully fulfilled. In my theory of EMDrive this device also generates stream of magnetic anapoles and tachyons, which also result from local violation of Maxwell field symmetry and which propel it forward. But this is IMO where this analogy ends, as the cold fusion doesn't actually require the monopoles and tachyons for its running - these particles rather represent rare byproduct of it.


    The problem with this analogy is, it's merely a homology (something like the convergent evolution examples) and the causality arrow for homologies gets reversed: you should already understand both related phenomena well for being able to postulate it, as it doesn't help in understanding, instead of it it may confuse it.

  • Before some time I also tried to relate the nuclear processes and overunity phenomena with holographic AdS/CFT correspondence. The general idea here is, the observable matter as we know it is the product of undercooling of products of supernovae explosions, something like the carbon monoxide and soot formed during fast cooling of candle flame. The resulting mixture exhibits latent heat and it has tendency to react further, once the conditions during supernovae explosions get restored. At the nuclear scale it follows from fact, that hydrogen and another elements can fuse to a more stable iron nuclei, the elements heavier than iron have their tendency to break apart instead (natural radioactivity). So there is still lotta latent heat, which just waits for its exploitation once we find some way, how to overcome Coulomb barrier.


    My idea therefore was, if the matter in common condensed phase isn't also in the state of energetic oversaturation, which just waits for its release, once we decrease the barriers for its thermalization. It would mean, that the overunity devices like the magnetic motors suck their energy from heat content of their environment and they generate usable work by cooling themselves to the temperature of free cosmic space all around us. The streams of invisible scalar waves represent the radiation which mediates this thermalization at distance in similar way, like the longitudinal waves of dense nuclear condensate tunnel the energy during nuclear reaction across Coulomb barrier. As you may guess, this idea is still in its conceptual rudimentary stage and I have no usage for it.


    In dense aether model the worlds of quantum mechanics and general relativity represent the extrinsic and intrinsic perspectives of foamy space-time brane or firewall, which we are living in like the bugs at the foamy layer of water surface. It means, that the negentropic (latent heat) phenomena at the nuclear scale have their macroscopic analogy at the topologically inverted macroscopic scale, because this layer has two surfaces and time arrows. This relation is known as so-called AdS/CFT correspondence and it manifests itself in many areas of physics.

  • AlainCo, perhaps you will agree that the suggestion that the EM Drive and LENR are related is relevant to the topic of the new forum about the EM Drive, in that they both are germain to the EM Drive? This is as off-topic as pointing out that 4He is sometimes found in PdD LENR in a thread about PdD LENR, which is to say that the point is exactly on-topic, which is diametrically opposite of off-topic.


    From current theories and evidences, there seems to be no relation.


    EmDrive theories involves relativistic effects, quantum vacuum/energy, cosmology...
    LENR involves quantum coherence and emerging pseudo-particles, better approximation of QM computation in atom, new/replacing QM theory...
    Michael McCulloch would like to connect both...


    anyway I'm conservative, so most disruptime theories are not on my list.


    Here I believe you're speaking beyond your knowledge, perhaps without knowing that you are?

  • It should be moved to the new forum, sure, but both are not connected...
    I wonder how both our forum can cross-polinize... ?(


    About off-topic, it is only off-topic relative to the thread, ( just talking of theory instead of cheering the new forum).
    My reaction is just to sort the discussions for both concerns not to be disrupted :saint: ... (maybe I forget an orphan post ?)
    Moreover the theoretical discussion is an important question already opened... It deserves to last long...

  • It should be moved to the new forum, sure, but both are not connected...
    I wonder how both our forum can cross-polinize...


    Allow me to assert counter to your assertion that LENR and the EM Drive are not connected, with an equally unfounded confidence, that the two are connected.


    If electron capture or beta decay are occurring within the EM Drive, high-momentum neutrinos will be exiting the cavity, possibly in a preferential direction, giving the drive a propellant, and making it incorrect to call it propellantless. You must now assert (1) that electron capture and beta decay are not pertinent to the EM Drive; and/or (2) electron capture and beta decay are not pertinent to LENR, to support your argument that the two topics are not connected. There is lots of fancy-sounding stuff that is trotted out both in connection with LENR and with the EM Drive which might seem to contradict this possibility, but one can safely ignore or at least discount much of what people suggest on these two topics.


    The new EM Drive forum is now created, and my intention isn't to disparage it. I do wonder where discussions that touch on both topics should now occur.


    About off-topic, it is only off-topic relative to the thread, ( just talking of theory instead of cheering the new forum).
    My reaction is just to sort the discussions for both concerns not to be disrupted ... (maybe I forget an orphan post ?)


    Ah, I see. Yes, that makes sense. You had placed the moderation comment seemingly in connection with my post, which was a point of confusion.

  • Zephyr_AWT: just a personal suggestion to you to stop downvoting posts simply because you disagree with them. I am considering beginning to downvote any posts of yours that I find a disagreement with as well, which I have refrained from doing up to now.

  • Quote

    just a personal suggestion to you to stop downvoting posts simply because you disagree with them

    Actually I downvoted you, because you were off-topic (well, again...) and after then Allan understood and he did move your post into a separate thread. Isn't the downvoting without further arguments exactly what this feature is all about? If I would have an arguments, I'd simply present them here as usualy. BTW The whinning about abuse of downvoting is the most reliable way how to get downvoted at most public forums. Not to say about threatening the other posters in similar way - your karma would get downvoted into oblivion with such an attitude at Reddit and elsewhere. 8) If you want to downvote me, be my guest - we aren't here at some popularity contest. I never sported high karma at public forums once I started to talk about aether, EMDrive or cold fusion - so I can survive the downvoting even right here.

  • Actually I downvoted you, because you were off-topic (well, again...) and after then Allan understood and he did move your post into a separate thread.


    As I have explained, my comment was exactly on-topic. It was your fanciful theoretical excursions which sent the thread off-topic. Really you should be downvoting yourself.


    Isn't the downvoting without further arguments exactly what this feature is all about?


    In a forum with as wide-ranging a set of discussions and quality of forum participation as this one, it makes little sense to use downvoting for disagreeing with someone. Really it should be used only very rarely, and reserved for discouraging trolling.


    BTW The whinning about abuse of downvoting is the most reliable way how to get downvoted at most public forums. Not to say about threatening the other posters in similar way - your karma would get downvoted into oblivion with such an attitude at Reddit and elsewhere.


    Have it your way.

  • Quote

    my comment was exactly on-topic. It was your fanciful theoretical excursions which sent the thread off-topic

    I don't understand why. So that your claim, that "mechanism underlying the EM Drive and what is going on in LENR are related" is exactly on-topic and my explanation how it possibly could be so already isn't?

  • I don't understand why. So that your claim, that "mechanism underlying the EM Drive and what is going on in LENR are related" is exactly on-topic and my explanation how it possibly could be so already isn't?


    You've taken it one step beyond the topic with your attempted explanation. My comment was a small, innocuous, single-line comment on the thread announcing a new forum for following the EM Drive news. The comment was obviously pertinent both to the new EM Drive forum and to LENR Forum. The comment in no way distracted from the topic of the thread; indeed, it was precisely about the topic of the thread. Your misplaced attempt to show theoretically why my comment had to be wrong was arguably quite off-topic. No matter. We have our new thread.

  • My suspicion is that the mechanism underlying the EM Drive and what is going on in LENR are related.


    Definitely. We don't really understand either, and both are being replicated and developed by private individuals and small groups working on tiny budgets.


    And my Latin thought for the day:- Qui moderatur Moderators.

  • Quote

    My comment was a small, innocuous, single-line comment on the threa

    Well, you just connected two areas of research, which are related in very broad and general way. The explanation of that way and its limits cannot be very different after then.


    BTW What did you actually want to initiate with your brief and vague remark? Did you just want to have it unnoticed? Why to post it here after then? Or to promote further thoughts? You did it. To raise discussions? You also did it. If you dont' want being discussed, don't tell the things which apparently deserve further discussions.

  • Wel, you just connected two areas of research, which are related in very broad and general way only. The explanation of that way and its limits cannot be very different after then.


    BTW What did you actually intend to initiate by your brief and vague remark? Did you just want to have it unnoticed? Why to post it after then? Or to promote further thoughts? You did it. To raise discussions? You also did it.


    I connected two poorly-known areas of research that might be intrinsically related. I am allowed a vague comment here or there. I have explained elsewhere in this thread one way that they might be connected in concrete terms. Perhaps you do not like it, which is fine.


    What I intended by my remark was to get people to think a little more about their assumptions underlying these two areas of research. In this I think I have succeeded. I'm very glad to have made my remark!

  • Quote

    I am allowed a vague comment here or there. I'm very glad to have made my remark! Perhaps you do not like it, which is fine.


    And I'm allowed to have more specific comment here at times. I feel also satisfied with it. Perhaps you do not like it, which is fine. But from the same reason I don't ask you not to downvote me.

    Quote

    What I intended by my remark was to get people to think a little more about their assumptions underlying these two areas of research

    But you didn't want to have writen them bellow your remark? You expected only positive reactions? Sorry - but it doesn't work so.

  • But you didn't want them to write down them here bellow your remark? You expected only possitive reactions? Sorry but it doesn't work so.


    This is a strawman argument. :)


    You are at liberty to reply to any remarks that are found in forum threads. You choose whether your remarks are on- or off-topic. In this case you chose to take a topic off course by replying tangentially to an on-topic remark. This is of course something that you are at liberty to do, and AlainCo was at liberty to split off this thread. You have choice over your actions.

  • Quote

    Downvote to discourage trolling. If you and I can agree on this, I will stop downvoting you when I disagree with something you say

    Why not - but you should also agree, it's my freedom to use voting according to my free will - and not just for avoiding the jealous retaliations of someones harmed ego.


    Deal?