These Are Real Pentagon Reports On Warp Drive, Extra Dimensions, Anti-Gravity, And More

Quote from Zephir_AWT

So why the mass-energy conservation law should be preserved in general?

There is no deeper reason for it - only leaky experience.

No, there is more than experience:

It is well supported by Einstein's theory, which is right in all other particulars as far as anyone knows. Many aspects of the theory have been tested by experiment, and found to be correct. Such as the effect of gravity on time, which was tested by moving an atomic clock one floor up above another, and observing the deviation.

In every particle physics experiment so far, the conservation of mass-energy has been confirmed.

The macroscopic conservation of mass and the conservation of energy (separately) have been confirmed in every experiment so far, and that goes back to the 18th century. With a macroscopic system, there is no way to measure the transformation from mass to energy. It is too small. In the future if instruments improve it might be measured, just as the relativistic effects of gravity on time have been observed.

Since we cannot even measure macroscopic mass-energy conversion at present, I think you are not justified in doubting it. There can be no evidence that it is not happening. Since it happens on a microscopic scale, we have every reason to think it also happens on a macroscopic scale.

I'm personally curious to have Shawyer's drive brought into proximity with a neutrino detector and see if anything is detected.

... carefully re-analysed.

Quote from H-G Branzell

As an example, the laws of physics are invariant with respect to translation in time.

This is only valid for macroscopic space where time is a free variable. Below de Broglie radius there is no free time and thus Einsteins laws no longer hold.

A part of the LENR reaction is running below de Broglie radius. EM-drive, ether energy is assumed to be of even deeper (= smaller space dimensions) origin, where we don't know any physical laws yet.

Thus I would give the experimenters a fair chance, as they had for the last 200 years too. And don't expect a working theory at the moment, where we just notice that standard theory fails for LENR...

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This is what I'm talking about - the neutrinos were detected twenty six years after observation of breaking of mass-energy conservation law. That means, over one quarter of century the physicists were forced to live with violation of one of most important principles of contemporary physics - such a situation can emerge anytime later. I also noted it just a few posts before. Do you think, you're smart, if you're allowing me to repeat it?

Actually this situation (the violation of mass-energy conservation law) did already happen before twenty six years already for example in form of reaction-less drives like the Shawyer's EMDrive or Woodward's Mach Drive. These devices move forward despite they don't release anything back - in this sense we also observe the violation of mass-energy conservation principle. Not accidentally every reaction-less drive is also potential perpetuum mobile (why?). Now the physics should also wait for a new neutrino-like particle, the reactive force of which would explain this anomaly.

But we didn't observe it - actually the physicists even didn't start to look for it. So why the mass-energy conservation law should be preserved in general?

There is no deeper reason for it - only leaky experience.

Display More

Zephir,

At the risk of labouring the point, your argument here in fact points the opposite direction. You point out that for 26 years an anomaly that could mean violation of mass-energy conservation, or else some new particle existed. It is a great vindication of mass-energy conservation that the particle was in fact found. Theories that make correct predictions of future evidence, like this, become more powerful, so that there is now more confidence that any m-e apparent anomaly will in fact be another new particle.

Scientists would indeed look for new particles to explain Woodward and Shawyer drives (needed for momentum conservation, not m-e conservation) except that in both cases the experimental evidence is very weak, with replicated (better quality) experiments showing lower effects, and clear error mechanisms in both cases that are difficult to rule out. I'm really sorry about this. It would be great (though unexpected) to have a reactionless drive.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

These symmetries are based on conservation laws anyway - a classical circular reasoning. What I pointed out was, the apparent violation of mass-energy conservation law has lead into finding of new particles, which supported it later - so I presume, that Woodward and Shawyer drives are another case of this paradigm. Just the particles which they generate are even more lightweight, numerous and elusive than the neutrinos and their detection may took even longer time, than at the case of neutrinos in their era. Until we find them, then we should consider mass-energy conservation violated in similar way, like Dirac - the inventor of neutrinos - did.

Zephir - the fact that conservation laws are based on symmetries brings the full weight of Occam's razor to their support. For example, while you can imagine a space in which translational symmetry did not hold, so that different regions of space had different physical laws, this is a lot more complex than the same laws everywhere (a symmetry).

Now as far as Woodward and Shawyer go, I agree that new particles would be one option to consider were they to be shown real. But the evidence thus far for either effect existing is poor. Your statement: Until we find them, then we should consider mass-energy conservation violated in similar way supposes that the evidence is clear-cut and irrefutable., which is incorrect. Even were the evidence clear-cut it remains the wrong way to express this: we would be wise to consider the liklihood of undetected particles, or some other issue, rather than violation of these fundamental conservation laws. this is what in the past has been the case.