Posts by michaelharney1

The aether theory was rejected because it didn't make sense with M-M - if we turn the interferometer in any direction we get the same result, but the old aether theory of the time was that it was like a gas that came up to the edge of a planet or solid object, not that it was actually part of the solid object (like the Earth). So the relative motion of the earth to the aether was a null result, but if you include the Earth as part of the aether (like the Earth is actually made of the aether), then a moving subset of the aether along with the Earth would also give a null result. If you imagine the Earth as a set of interacting in and out waves that travel in the aether (so the space medium is moving as well), then you get a null result on the M-M. But if you have a black hole merging with another one (two separate reference frames), the combined wave effect is to generate a modulating wave (called a GRAVITY WAVE) outside of the reference frame of either object, which is exactly what LIGO is seeing this year and last.

Hi Eric,

Now to answer the questions you asked about input power (sorry, still getting used to the format of this forum, I can't read the thread I am replying to while replying):

"Two questions of mine have to do with the power.In a comment above, Jack Cole mentions not finding any correlation between input power and thrust. Do you agree that it’s important that such a correlation be seen in order to validate your explanation?

I would expect the thrust to be roughly on the order of the photon recoil, which is a function of the input power, and just accomplished by different means. According to this discussion that took place sometime back, photon radiation recoil would be insufficient to explain the thrust reported for the EMDrive for the input powers used. Do you have any comment on this suggestion as it relates to your explanation?"

1. Yes, I believe the input power and output thrust should be correlated, but the geometry is important here - if this is a low Q cavity (like Tajmar's was) you can't expect a lot of correlation because without having high resonance (high Q) you won't get that differential pressure.

2. The thrust from a classical photon rocket ( h/lambda) is not the same as the pressure differential we are talking about - the classical photon momentum is way too low to be responsible for the measured thrust values in my opinion. I think we are looking at standing-wave pressure imbalance as described previously with the Casmir effect, except induced by standing wave photons which has the effect of multiplying the small force seen in the Casmir experiments by many orders of magnitude.

Hi Eric,

"I understand your paper to be saying that something about the geometry of the EMDrive is causing the EM radiation to create a kind of "pressure" differential between the inside and outside of the cavity. This seems to imply that the EMDrive is pushing off of the vacuum itself. Is this correct?"

This is correct - when a resonance condition exists between photons inside the walls of a metal cavity, the vacuum pressure from the outside of the cavity increases one the longer side as opposed to the shorter one. This is evidence of a underlying wave structure that is enforced with electron wave centers both inside and outside of the cavity. It's the confinement of an internal standing wave in the cavity that requires a balance of pressure from the incoming waves on the outside of the cavity. We can think of concepts many different waves - quantized angular momentum for instance is:

mvr = nh/2pi

which can easily be rearranged to:

h/mv = 2(pi)r/n = lambda

which is another wave of saying that the electron is a standing wave of fixed, quantized wavelength in a path around the fixed energy level (radius) from the nucleus. The fact that we can see so the same concept different ways suggests we may need to revisit our QM understanding (which is happening by Penrose and others). The pressure differential is real and very similar to what happens in the Casmir Effect (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html ).

If you have a better explanation of how GR and quantum theory describe the vacuum of space, please expound upon it. Until you do, i don't think you have a license to call anybody a crackpot unless you want to use it to describe somebody (hint, maybe you?) who has no valid explanation and just wants to accept the status quo of not needing an explanation to describe inconsistencies in physics. For me, a call of crackpot does not thing but show the ignorance of somebody who knows how to call names but doesn't understand the subject matter - show us your physics knowledge and debunk it logically if you actually know something about it.

Hi, my name is Mike Harney - thank you Alan for inviting me to the discussion. So the issue of momentum has come up many times - let me just ask you one question: How does a boat or airplane with a propeller create thrust? It doesn't have an internal reaction mass that it expels (the gasoline engine just turns the propeller)? Here's a great write up from NASA on it - https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/propth.html , but suffice it to say that the propeller exists in a fluid (air or water) and the propeller's airfoil creates a pressure imbalance due to the Bernoulli effect - the same reason lift occurs on an airfoil or wing, because the air flows faster along one surface as opposed to the opposite surface to maintain equilibrium in the fluid. The propeller does the same thing - the surface of the propeller on one side is a longer path than the other and this causes the fluid to move faster along the longer surface to make up the difference in equilibrium at each sides of the propeller. the equations in the NASA link are characteristic too - notice the dependence on Velocity squared - this is important and we will come back to it. Now, the EM drive is using standing waves inside of a cavity (that's called resonance) and those standing EM waves do interact with the vacuum both inside and outside of the cavity. When I say vacuum I am talking about the quantum vacuum that has caused so much debate among theoretical physicists and experimenters. Some will say (as Dirac did in the 1920s) that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles, others will say it's energy and the truth is physics doesn't have a real answer because of one nasty inconsistency that nobody can explain - zero point energy. That's the energy of curved space (which we are in) due to General Relativity and any mass nearby and the correlation of that energy with the quantum vacuum. The vacuum says we can set any reference energy level as zero, but GR says that's not OK - the curved space has real energy. Therefore, we have a lot of energy in the vacuum - no question about it if we believe in GR but the question is, what is it manifested as when it's not creating virtual particles? It's wave energy - lots of it. Check out pilot wave theory and these experiments which describe the vacuum we know quite well - https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/ . We are waves - all of us, that is the new theory. Particles are just combinations of waves that have a circular structure as described in the wired article. That makes the vacuum easy - the wave energy outside of the EM cavity is pushing on it in all directions all the time. What makes a difference is when the standing waves inside the cavity have a different group velocity than the standing waves at the other end of the cavity - then a pressure differential is setup similar to the propeller in the NASA paper. In my paper, I describe how the Bernoulli effect of this wave energy in the vacuum creates a pressure differential because of the longer and shorter sides of the cavity, just like the propeller, there is a differential of thrust between each side. I also calculate, using basic wave equations for a standard wave, that the thrust is proportional to the difference between the square of the group velocities - again just like the NASA paper, you can see this in equation 2a and 2b of my paper (http://vixra.org/pdf/1604.0024v4.pdf) and the group velocity translates into the geometry of the taper of the cavity (cosine of the taper angle). So there is no problem with momentum - just like a boat in water running a propeller or a glider in the air producing lift. If you want to learn more about the wave theory of space, I recommend this link - www.wsminfo.org - Dr. Milo Wolff has made great progress explaining so many aspects of physics with this theory and I have written some papers as a coauthor with him and others to explain many of the mysteries of physics (special relativity has a few that are easy to explain - Google the GZK limit as an example). Hope this helps - just my take but it seems pretty simple to me if we are dealing with waves - no EM waves have to escape the cavity because the pressure on the sides is already there, we just create an imbalance with the EM drive.