It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

page: 16
150
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48


Neither of them is doing any work or expending any energy, because there is no acceleration


exactly, a push or a pull is acceleration, therefore work and not force.
result ...not cause !
force is, taking a closed system for this, an unequal distribution of electric and/or magnetic momenta in the system


a reply to: Harte

push the brick wall little harder till you overcome the "bounding energy" holding the brick wall together, and there is acceleration.
edit on 4-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Vdogg

Bottom line aren't we really talking about the difference between a closed and an open system?

What people usually refer to when they talk about the Laws Of Conservation is a closed system, but if one interacts with the QVP, it's not a closed system but an open system?



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

That's exactly right. If this is indeed interacting with QVP, or any outside field for that matter, this would be considered an open system. There HAS to be an exchange of energy somewhere in order for this thing to work, there simply has to be. I think we have a lot more testing and hand wringing in front of us before before we really get a handle on this phenomenon, if it actually exist at all.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Vdogg

Okay we agree on something: If this is a real breakthrough, it's because we're able to shift from a closed to an open system.

Right?



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Vdogg

Bottom line aren't we really talking about the difference between a closed and an open system?

What people usually refer to when they talk about the Laws Of Conservation is a closed system, but if one interacts with the QVP, it's not a closed system but an open system?


exactly !
but still closed within a sphere expanding with the propagation speed of C...
"it's not a closed system but an open system?
...to answer your question
closed by time

EM Thruster do not evaluate the low of physics, it evaluates the low of physicists...
just because physicist believe something, doesn't mean that's the way nature works

the EM Thruster system resonates into EM medium causing disturbance in those field,
there is no net force on the small "closed unit" so no evaluation of physics, NO,
... but as it interacts farther it causes a de-poll on its charge/wave/radiation force
unbalance in equilibrium is force, and that's how it moves..


big science... though



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Not so much A shift from a closed to open system. More like it's always been an open system, but our current scientific understanding wasn't advanced enough to understand that. It simply "appeared" to be a closed system because those saying this is impossible weren't taking into account the possibility of interacting with QVP.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Vdogg

QVP is what ?

... just trying to follow...



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Quantum Vacuum Plasma. Just got tired of typing it out.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vdogg
a reply to: KrzYma

Quantum Vacuum Plasma. Just got tired of typing it out.



I understand, but why has it to be quantized ?
just because of the photo-electric effect ?
this is the property of the material not those of an EM field
edit on 4-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

The QVP is a field that consist of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. The scientists at NASA hypothesized that the force produced may be a result of interaction with these particles. This is necessary because there has to be something to confer momentum, produce thrust, etc. Microwaves bouncing around inside a closed chamber simply won't do it. Think of a of a motor boat and think of the water that a motor boat is in as the QVP or some other generic field. Without water to push against/interact with the boat won't move. You pull it out of the water and set it on the beach the boat will simply sit there motionless with its propeller spinning. This EM thruster is a boat out of water unless we can determine some mechanism to describe how this force is produced. Since we are not expelling propellant then there must be some other element at work.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Vdogg
a reply to: KrzYma

Quantum Vacuum Plasma. Just got tired of typing it out.



I understand, but why has it to be quantized


Because if we are simply dealing with Newtonian Physics, then the law of conservation has indeed been violated. The only thing that keeps this even remotely inline (read tested and verified over centuries) with our current understanding of physics is considering this to be the result of some form of little understood quantum effect.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vdogg

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Vdogg
a reply to: KrzYma

Quantum Vacuum Plasma. Just got tired of typing it out.



I understand, but why has it to be quantized


Because if we are simply dealing with Newtonian Physics, then the law of conservation has indeed been violated. The only thing that keeps this even remotely inline (read tested and verified over centuries) with our current understanding of physics is considering this to be the result of some form of little understood quantum effect.


Well i looked at the experiment and came up with two results as a possibility that needs to be tested. One we find this is an unknown effect of kinetic theory. The other being the experiment itself i was looking at the results and realized i dont think he starts with the correct values throwing off all calculations. When i looked at the paper for Frustum microwave resonator (thruster cavity) alot more detailed paper give one to the Chinese. I noticed the system is an open system not a closed system thats needed to prove thrust. See it looks like thrust and force are being confused.In order for a drive to work it must create thrust. In other words thrust in a device that can accelerate itself while completely insulated from the environment. When looking hes not however it is an open system his power supply is external and what they are measuring for force on the wave guide problem is this is still allowing energy to flow into the system its not closed from external power grid. Other thing in the Chinese measurement verifying the results there measuring internal pressure instead of thrust there not the same.Meaning the thrust is just an anomaly of the way the experiment is set up isolate the system and it will stop functioning and also need to find a different way to measure thrust instead of pressure on the wave guide thats not thrust.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr I noticed the system is an open system not a closed system thats needed to prove thrust. See it looks like thrust and force are being confused.In order for a drive to work it must create thrust. In other words thrust in a device that can accelerate itself while completely insulated from the environment. When looking hes not however it is an open system his power supply is external and what they are measuring for force on the wave guide problem is this is still allowing energy to flow into the system its not closed from external power grid. Other thing in the Chinese measurement verifying the results there measuring internal pressure instead of thrust there not the same.Meaning the thrust is just an anomaly of the way the experiment is set up isolate the system and it will stop functioning and also need to find a different way to measure thrust instead of pressure on the wave guide thats not thrust.



Actually, they are not entirely mistaken in their testing methods.

In some cases, using external power sources could prove beneficial if thrust produced is incredibly small compared to the weight of a self-contained power supply. It can prove difficult, even impossible to get some meaningful data due to engineering limitations.

However, you can test for "anomalous thrust" under varied logical test scenarios using an external power source. These are carefully designed test setups to discount/logically isolate anomalous thrust from electromagnetic interference, ionic emissions, em radiation and other potential sources of thrust/movement.

I know these things from experience. I'm also in the process of testing an electronic thruster of a unique design also based on Relativity of a different flavor (not the same as special relativity)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Vdogg

Thanks!

That's what I was trying to say.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Rob48




Neither of them is doing any work or expending any energy, because there is no acceleration





exactly, a push or a pull is acceleration, therefore work and not force.

result ...not cause !

force is, taking a closed system for this, an unequal distribution of electric and/or magnetic momenta in the system





a reply to: Harte



push the brick wall little harder till you overcome the "bounding energy" holding the brick wall together, and there is acceleration.

Caused by the force you apply.

Do you believe there is no fiorce if you push on it at it doesn't fall over?

Harte



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I'm following up on one of my previous posts regarding the work of Tom Bearden:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


originally posted by: Mary Rose
Do you agree or disagree that force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation, logically speaking?


Anyone?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
There is a 44 minute audio file of an interview of Randell Mills by Sterling Allan that took place on July 29, 2014 posted on Blacklight Power's website:




www.blacklightpower.com...
Mary that link is a bit dicey as some scripts started running and my computer hung up around 19 mins.
but any way I eventually listened to the full interview. randy goes all over the place and couldnt answer the ques about what the first product will be in the market, although he does say that these units or products will be in the market in 16 to 18 weeks. he also says that some professors have replicated their process. he says that the light they produce cannot be split into a spectrum.
now I hope blp are legit but I wont be holding my breath.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Mary that link is a bit dicey as some scripts started running and my computer hung up around 19 mins.


Is there anything I need to do to fix that?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
. . . but any way I eventually listened to the full interview. randy goes all over the place and couldnt answer the ques about what the first product will be in the market, although he does say that these units or products will be in the market in 16 to 18 weeks.


Why are you suspicious or offended or whatever it is you are, by that?

Isn't that proprietary information when on an interview with Sterling Allan designed to inform the public, not stockholders or investors or whatever?

In other words, is it really any of our business?


originally posted by: Nochzwei
. . . he also says that some professors have replicated their process.

Are you suggesting he's not telling the truth?


originally posted by: Nochzwei
. . . he says that the light they produce cannot be split into a spectrum.

And exactly what do you have to say to that?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
IMHO, I wish the wording was a bit more like: "...EM Thruster violates KNOWN laws of conservation..."

We are only just beginning to scratch the surface with how our universe and physical world works.
Quantum theory is evident of this fact.
It's like we only discovered the first 2 pages of Lego instructions out of 100 total pages to build our Tie-fighters and X-wings. lol

More advancements in Quantum theory, computing, engineering, and kinetics will undoubtedly help us understand more and more. I really like the talk from Garrett Lisi about his proposed 8-dimensional universe theory.

Link to one of his videos:
www.ted.com...

Using geometry and patterns, he has come up with a theory involving particles that we have yet to discover. They are proposed variables that 'fit' into the overall 'design.' I believe we're on the cusp of obtaining some powerful new mechanics by which we may interact with our physical space.

Maybe these EM thrusters are interacting with a yet unknown system of kinetics and mechanics?
Or like some of the bright minds here have already said, interactions with the QVP, or other quantum-effect.
I have a feeling that the microwaves produced by this design must be displaying the effects of laws we have yet to discover







 
150
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join