Gravity Propulsion Drive

Aqueous Id/Everyone,

Zero Energy Technology
A photon is emitted from a source in its inertial frame. Light always travels at the speed of light for all observers; so we never think that the photon has to catch up with a detector that is moving away from the emitter. But in a way, it does. It's called redshift. There is a mechanism that connects redshift to reference frames with a relative velocity. and how do reference frames acquire a non zero relative velocity? Acceleration.

I can see that FM radio and swept frequencies have not produced curved space effects. In defense of my frequency shift/acceleration idea, I have to go to large frequency shifts in very short time periods. I have to argue that the slope of frequency change versus time, \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\)must be incredibly large before a noticeable acceleration field occurs. But there is catch. Someone could toggle between a red LED and a blue LED at a million times per second, and then say: Hey, I'm frequency shifting from red to blue a million times per second, but nothing is happening! So then, I have to tell you that you need dozens, hundreds of tiny frequency steps for it to work. You have to flash each one in sequence of increasing frequency. You're trying to imitate what a black hole does to a photon that falls along the black hole's radii. So someone comes along with a hundred LED's, and arranges them in a row, and turns each one on and off, one at a time, with a high speed circuit and a 26MHz clock. This person says: I don't see a gravity field? Why doesn't is work? Well, all of the frequencies have to be emitted from a single point in space.

So this experimentalist attaches a fiber optic cable, of equal length, to each of a hundred LED's, wraps the 100 opposite ends with a rubber band, turns it on, and says: what about now? I don't see anything.

So I say: All of the k-vectors are slightly different. It really doesn't look like a single point emitting a range of frequencies. Maybe from a hundred feet away it might. Why don't you try making a 100x100 lattices of rubber bounded optic cables. From far away, it might start to look like a plane wave falling into a black hole.

So the experimentalist comes back in a year with a black box. She says something about a grant, and says that this face of the box has 100x100 holes, 100 frequency steps come out of it, one at a time, in sequence, 1 million times per second. From several meters away, it looks like a frequency shifting plane wave. We look at it turned on, and it looks like white light because the frequencies blend together and our eyes can't discern the colors. By the way, 3 colors (red, green and blue pixels) on a tv screen won't work. They have to be real wavelengths and frequencies..

So we take it down to the LIGO gravity research center, and they let us shine our gravity ray box along one of the legs to see if it generates a phase difference.
I ask: when transitioning between frequency steps, do the frequencies overlap? They have to overlap.

The experimentalist say: yes, they overlap, they overlap by a few cycles, out of phase.

I say: you'll have to work on that. But let's see if LIGO can detect a gravity field. \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t} = \frac{800THz - 400THz}{10^{-6} sec} = 4x10^{20}cycles/sec^2\) which is really good. There are 100 frequency steps (that's really good). At some distance d from the black box, the frequencies combine together and look like a plane wave that is frequency shifting (that's good). The frequency shift is repeated over and over so that the curvature of space-time, if it exists, it doesn't travel away at the speed light because you keep the box turned on (that's good). The frequency steps overlap (that's good); if they don't overlap, than it doesn't look a black hole that is frequency shifting the light. From frequency step to frequency step, the phases need to line up (you'll have to work on that).

Do the emissions have enough power? I really don't know. If you get proof of concept, you'll have to measure the acceleration field versus power output.

Does it have to be visible light? Not necessarily. \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\) has to be high. And the frequency shift quality has to be good. If the frequency shift quality is really good, you won't need LIGO, you'll be able to counteract gravity. Quality of frequency shift depends on:
1. How many frequency steps. More than 8, less than 100 steps (?).
2. It has to look like a plane wave that is frequency shifting, at the observance point. If it looks like a frequency shifting plane wave from 10 meters distance to 10.1meters, then you can generate force fields.
3. Step to step frequency phases should line up.

Very very high quality frequency shifts will let you pursue acceleration field propulsion, and someday, the hyper drive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What incredible nonsense the aliens are putting in your head.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everyone,
Zero Energy Technology
For frequency shifts of the form: \(f(t)=[\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}]t + f_0\),
1. What is the largest frequency slope \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\) ever generated? For FM radio, \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}=2x10^8 cycles/sec^2\). Too low.
2. Was it tested at LIGO? How was acceleration detected.
3. What was the quality of the wave? How many frequency steps? What was the phase step transition quality like?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Zero Energy Technology
For frequency shifts of the form (\(y=mx+b\)): \(f(t)=[\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}]t + f_0\),
1. What is the largest frequency slope \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\) ever generated? For FM radio, \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}=2x10^8 Hertz/sec\). Too low.
2. Was it tested at LIGO? How was acceleration detected.
3. What was the quality of the wave? How many frequency steps? What was the phase step transition quality like?

Below \(10^{20}Hz/s\), photons frequency shift between reference frames.

Above \(10^{20}Hz/s\), frequency shift causes reference frames to accelerate; frequency shift induces frame dragging.

Yes Alexg, it is incredible. And for those with too much pride, it is nonsensical.

 

I just noticed this:

i is the square root of -1, not a frequency. That's what's known in the trade as a clanger. Plus you've managed to demonstrate you don't understand what a frame of reference is. That equation describes the propagation of a wavefunction in the x direction, and because of the complex exponential that means both directions apply. So you don't know (unless you have an external frame of reference, say a mirror or some other kind of barrier to the propagation) anything about direction except there are two of them.

 

The vacuum of empty space has to be able transmit electromagnetic energy (radio waves, microwaves, xrays, visible light, etc...). For space to have that ability, there has to be a medium of some kind. I accept that QM is correct, but I interpret wave-function mathematical expressions to have a naturally occurring analogue and are a real phenomena. For flat empty space that can transmit a photon of any frequency, then it has to be filled with wave-functions (nature) that can transmit plane waves at each and every point along the x-axis, and every frequency from 0.1Hz to the upper limit (10^27Hz+).

Is it unreasonable to model the vacuum of space out of infinite plane waves of wave-functions? Should I chose another sinusoid? Do you reject that the vacuum of space is a medium at all?

Also, if I just look at a point at x=0, then I just get \(e^{i\omega t}\), which is like a clock of frequency \(\omega = 2 \pi f\) at that point. There are an infinite number of frequencies at that point, all of which are quantum systems evolving in time, all of which act like clocks at that point.

 

How can you see that? You don't do any experiments so you have no real world data. Furthermore any photon causes space-time warping, just the higher energy ones cause more. A photon contributes to T, altering the energy-momentum tensor (as photons have both).

Now you're changing your tune. You go from "Not produced curved space effects" to "Not produced noticeable effects".

Except you aren't. What you describe emits many different photons, each with a different frequency. You aren't altering the frequency of any of the individual photons, which is what a black hole gravitational field would do, you just make lots of different ones.

It's like several cars driving past you, the first at 100mph, then 90mph, then 80mph, etc until finally the last car drives past at 10mph and then you claiming the cars are decelerating. No, each car is moving at a different speed but the speed is unchanging. Emitting sequences of photons moving through the visible spectrum doesn't frequency shift any individual photon.

It doesn't work because even if frequency shifts in photons made gravitational fields none of the photons are changing frequency. You've failed to grasp such a basic but fundamental point.

Green, red and blue photons have 'real wavelengths and frequencies', whatever that means. Photons are photons. No photon is 'white'.

I'll skip your unjustified delusions of competent physics...

Do you think if you make unjustified assertions enough time reality will bend to your whims?

You're showing how weak your mathematics is by not using even the most rudimentary calculus to make that statement more general.

FM may stand for frequency modulation but individual photons are not frequency modulated. Instead the signal is encoded by the difference between constant frequencies. Each photon emitted has a specific frequency. Only when viewed as a collection is the EM field viewable as time varying in the manner you describe but it is not doing what a gravitational field does.

A gravitational field might change a specific photon from frequency \(f_{1}\) to frequency \(f_{2}\). An FM transmitter emits a sequence of photons with specific frequencies \(f_{1}\) through to \(f_{2}\). No shift in the individual photons.

No, it doesn't. Quantum field theory and relativity do not require a medium for light in order to accurately describe it's behaviour. Thus is it entirely justified to say "We do not require an aether to explain the phenomena associated to light". Yes, an aether might exist but presently we have no reason to assume it does.

This is pretty basic logic. If some phenomenon can be accurately described by a model which doesn't require a particular assumption then you cannot say the phenomenon requires the assumption, as it is demonstrably describable without the assumption. Occams razor then comes into play.

You obviously don't have enough mathematical knowledge to grasp the workings of wave functions and their role in quantum mechanics.

Or do you think you do? Do you know how to do anything with the Schrodinger equation?

You mistake something in space for space. A wavefunction resides in space-time, it isn't space-time. It's like saying my car is a road. No, my car exists on a road, along with lots of other cars.

You don't get to decide what form a wave function takes, it is dictated by the physical configuration of the system and the Schrodinger equation.

Can I take it from your silence in response to my corrections of your mistakes about the Einstein field equations that you've conceded you're mistaken? The cosmological constant is not ignored by physicists nor has everyone ignored things like time varying Hubble 'constants' or the like. You're woefully uninformed about what physicists actually do and clearly don't know anything about wave functions beyond what Wikipedia can tell you.

 

Go perform the experiment. The largest \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\) you've reached is \(10^8 Hz/s\); that's not high enough to generate an acceleration field. You need a frequency shift with a much much higher slope.

In short, light frequency shifts when transitioning from reference frame A to reference frame B. But when frequency shift is synthesized with a very large slope, it's the other way around. The frequency shift pushes the two reference frames apart.

 

I agree. An experiment should be performed. Have someone input a sawtooth wave down into an FM transmitter at LIGO. Let's check to see if LIGO can detect a gravity field (a phase deviation in the interferometer).

There is so little curvature of space-time caused by the energy of the photons that the stress-energy tensor can be ignored. It's not the energy of the photons that counts, it's whether or not they look like a redshift (frequency shift) to the space-time continuum. To the extent that they do, the absolute value of the Cosmological constant will get larger, \(|\Lambda|\).

You'll have to perform you're own experiments to find out the details of what conditions give your proof of concept. What frequency slope, what upper and lower frequencies, what quality of frequency shift, what power settings, etc. Proof of concept is very desirable.

I gotta go; be back later.

 

Based on some assumptions not required to get down the road with your ideas. All you need to worry about is that a high relative velocity (or apparent velocity) is observed.

Why? What does baseband frequency or slew rate have to do with external reality? Objects in redshift generally aren't acclerating and decelerating, they're at a constant velocity. This idea doesn't even correlate with anything.

I tried to find something with merit to respond to, but it's not there. This is all like a very bad dream. I would hate to be plagued by this. I'll do what I can to disabuse you of it, but ultimately it's up to you to actually hear what folks are saying to you.

What experiment? Alpha's remarks incorporate the results of countless experiments. Plus he's tying in quantum effects and a whole lot more.

I don't know where you get this from. Typically FM radio fits a 75kHz deviation, for 20 kHz bandwidth. FDMA hits up to 250 Kbps so the rise times are way higher. The you have spread spectrum which is still higher.

Of course, what does frequency deviation have to do with any of this? The redshifted object generally isn't deviating in the first place. It's generally showing fixed velocity. So why even go there?

Based on what? And FM isn't a frequency shift. It's modulation. It's wiggling back and forth. Stars don't do that.

No, not only is your "very large slope" just pulled out of thin air, but it's not correlated to constant velocity redshift, nor to gradual acceleration cases (like airplanes, sats or high speed land vehicles), nor to radar, spread spectrum, interferometry or spectroscopy, any of which would already have reported levitation and space bending if it occurred like you think it does.

 

I would at least pick sensible aliens to hang out with.

 

Firstly you completely ignored my explanation that your LED array experiment has nothing to do with changing the frequency of individual photons and thus is not doing what a gravitational field does. Secondly you haven't retorted my explanation of why T=0 is an invalid thing to stipulate. Thirdly you clearly don't even know what a reference frame is.

You know you haven't studied this stuff. You know you haven't got a working education in quantum mechanics or relativity. You know that you're practically innumerate when compared to the level of mathematical capabilities needed to work with this stuff. You probably also know that throughout history when someone says "God's voice told me" they have been mentally ill.

 

Mazulu, alphanumeric, et al,

Why would we suspect that a photon, or any other force carrier, can curve space-time?

(CONFUSION)

I thought that mass was required to curve space-time. Obviously I'm wrong.

• If light (photons) has the ability to curve-space, then what would the effect be on its trajectory?
  
• And would light encounter friction or impart friction?
  
• What mass does a photon have? And, where along the path of a photon does space-time bend or curve.
  
• Could light go into orbit of a massive object?
  
• What shape is the curve? As light leaves a star, omni-directionally, and spreads-out, what shape does it produce in the fabric of space?

v/r
R

 

Hi Rocco,
The amount of curvature caused by photons, by virtue of their energy is irrelevant. Furthermore, we're not interested in the stress energy tensor as a source of curvature because we can't carry around solar masses worth of mass-energy to curve space for us; it's very impractical. Instead, we're interested in driving the Cosmological constant as an easy way to curve space-time.

We suspect the photon because nothing else travels at the speed of light, not neutrinos, not gravitons (never detected), not quarks, nothing. Nothing travels as fast as light. Furthermore, waves of electromagnetic energy have a built in clock (frequency) and are a measuring stick as well (wavelength). Even the mass of a particle is gauged against the speed of light (E=mc^2). The speed of light is the standard by which other particles are measured. The speed of light is invariant for all reference frames. So everything that travels at the speed of light is suspected of being directly involved with how space-time is physically implemented.

The questions that you ask are perfectly reasonable for what physicists do today; they calculate trajectories, geodesics and curves. But what were after is a new capability. A Cosmological propulsion drive is going to require lots and lots and lots of experiments in order to figure out how to write out a set of equations that describes it. I don't know what those equations will look like or how they will be integrated into the standard model + GR.

1. Synthesize a linear frequency shift that looks like gravitational redshift. Maybe you don't think it's the same the thing as a redshift caused by gravity or Doppler redshift. What you think doesn't count. It's what nature thinks. Don't tell nature how to do her job. Do an experiment.

2. We're not going to build a gravity ray using black holes; that's why the stress energy tensor is set to zero. Now, after you get proof of concept, then you can worry about it again. The goal is not to make a perfect math model. The goal is to create a new form of propulsion by curving space-time by changing the Cosmological constant by using rapid/repeated frequency shift to change the intrinsic energy of the vacuum. OK, why do we need to worry about the stress-energy tensor? It's just an excuse and an obstacle that gets in the way.

3. I know that the speed of light is the same in ALL reference frames. Doesn't that seem a little fishy to you? In your whole life, you've never wondered why this is true? You've never wondered how two frames of reference are physically connected such that c is the same for both?

 

Do you realize that what your saying is the equivalent of saying that if I paint a picture of an explosion I will trick mother nature into making my painting explode? :shrug:

 

Huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Slew rate refers to a high time rate of change of voltage. I'm talking about a high rate of change in electromagnetic frequency. Incidentally, the current in a capacitor is given by the equation \(i = C\frac{dv}{dt}\). Photons redshift; massive objects accelerate/decelerate. Why? Because the invariance of c for all reference frames is suspicious. It suggests that inertial reference frames are connected somehow. Light doesn't have to accelerate or decelerate to change frames, it only has to frequency shift. So frequency shift occurs as a sort of acceleration between reference frames, except light isn't accelerating, it's frequency shifting. There really isn't any research in the area of large slope frequency shifting. It's a wide open pristine area of research, and a dark corner of scientific inquiry. I could argue that large slope frequency shifting is the key to warp propulsion drives, and there's not a shred of evidence to contradict me.

:bawl:

Do you presume to tell nature what to do? No! Nature tells you what to do. Go do an experiment.

What do fast rise times have to do with large frequency-time slopes? For an electromagnetic wave frequency shift of the form \(f(t) = [\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}t+f_0]\), \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}> 10^{25}\).

Because invariance of c from frame to frame to frame is queer, weird, strange, suspicious and illogical. It looks like shenanigans. It looks like nature is using magic to make it work. Therefore, frequency shift also looks suspicious. So let's give nature back some of her own medicine, and see what happens.

OK, I'm talking about frequency shifting of the form\(f(t) = [\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}t+f_0]\). I would draw you a picture if I could, but it's just a picture of a line. As an example, you could ramp the frequency from 400 to 800THz, every one microsecond, to get a frequency slope of \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t} = \frac{800THz - 400THz}{10^{-6s}}=4x10^{20} Hz/s \). Just repeat it until you can check measure the induced acceleration.

Can you be more specific? What was the frequency shift slope? What was the form and quality of the emitted frequency shift? How was acceleration measured?

 

The laws of nature are implemented by naturally occurring wave-forms. The vacuum of empty space is also made of these same wave-forms, one for each inertial reference frame. Reference frames are interconnected by frequency shifting/time dilating waves. All of these waves have an argument of the form \((kx - \omega t)\) that upholds the velocity of light as \(c=\frac{\omega}{k}\).

If matter, energy and space were implemented with paint, then the picture would explode.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What is the force of a particle of mass m in an acceleration field a? Answer: F=ma.

What is the force of a photon of energy E = hf in an acceleration field? Answer:
1. Start with F = ma.
2. Acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity, \(F = m\frac{dv}{dt}\)

3. Photons don't have mass, they have energy, so \(m=\frac{E}{c^2} =\frac{hf}{c^2}\).

4. That gives us \(F = [\frac{hf}{c^2}][\frac{dv}{dt}]\)

5. Photons only move at the speed of light, so they never accelerate. So what do we do with the term \(a = \frac{dc}{dt}\)? Photons don't accelerate, but they do frequency shift. So we move the d/dt to the frequency.

6. When we do this, we get \(F=\frac{hdf}{cdt}\).

For a massive particle to transition from one frame to another, it must accelerate. But when a photon transitions from frame A to B, it must frequency shift.

 

Wow, talk about hypocritical. I can explain why your 'experiment' doesn't do as you claim it does. I am not making this without evidence, I'm basing it on evidence. Compare that with you, where you're doing nothing but randomly stating "Nature works like this!".

How do you not see how massively hypocritical your comments are? You get your information from voices in your head and you're complaining Nature doesn't care what I[/] think? I'm telling you how Nature works based on evidence, not voices in my head.

This just shows how you don't understand relativity. Do you think only black holes contribute to T or something? You want to use photons. Photons alter T! You're saying you need to use particular photons to alter space-time curvature. That's altering T to alter G. You claim you'll change the cosmological constant, which isn't true. Pumping specific photons into a space-time region alters T, which will alter the curvature. You haven't got a clue.

It isn't an excuse. You keep mentioning things from general relativity but you clearly don't know what any of it does. You're obviously just lifting things from viable science you think you can get away with and ignoring all the science behind it.

I learnt relativity to see how it all fits together. I don't have to randomly make up things I heard about on Wikipedia.

 

AlphaNumeric
I want to drive home this point. When you can construct a perfect linear frequency shift out of individual frequencies, something strange happens. It's like mother nature can't decide if it's a bunch of photons of constant frequency, or a bunch of frequency shifting photons. If they're frequency shifting photons, then where are the reference frames that they should be shifting between? And where is the associated acceleration field between the inertial frames? There is a tipping point at which time the shift photons that we synthesized, are now exciting gravity fields along their vector.

Call me the nut that talks to God and the aliens about propulsion if you like, I don't care. But high slope, frequency shift experiments are a completely new area of research. There is no reason not to look into it.