Gravity Propulsion Drive

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry to break into a serious discussion; just thought this was amusing.​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So high df/dt experiments have been performed? How large was \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\)? Was it a linear frequency shift? How was acceleration measured?

You're telling nature how to work? That is incredibly egotistical. What experiments compare to what I am describing?

We have a word for describing how little a few photons will curve space-time, the word is: negligible. That's why photons don't jump off your shirt and open up wormholes. You're also making frivolous arguments. Anyone can see that the earth causes a 1g gravity field at a radius of 6300 km. Please refrain from making frivolous arguments.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your arrogance is astounding. You are the GR expert who can solve the Ricci curvature tensor. But an average person can figure out that curvature of space-time just means: acceleration field. Please keep your ego in check.

You keep bragging about it. Do you know how to use the math editor? Please enlighten me with your radiant knowledge.:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh Yeah?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clearly you're either not reading my posts or you're failing to understand.

I explained why the LED experiment you describe has nothing to do with frequency shifting individual photons, which is what a gravitational field does. Obviously you don't understand.

Yes, I can tell you how that experiment works because it's very basic.

Besides, you're the guy who claims God told him how Nature works. I don't think you're in any position to tell people they are egotistical, you think a deity speaks to you and only you! That isn't just egotistical, it's insane.

Actually my arrogance when it comes to you and other hacks on forums is well justified.

The issue isn't one of mathematics (which, as it happens, I'm well versed in) but one of simple physics. When a single photon falls into a gravitational well it's frequency changes. You're trying to reproduce that using other means. Having an array of LEDs which emit different frequencies of light and firing them quickly will not frequency shift any single photon. Each photon remains at a constant frequency, the only change is photon to photon.

Emitting two photons, one at frequency 101Mhz and another at 100Mhz isn't the same as 2 101Mhz photons falling into a gravity well and both changing to 100Mhz. It's very basic. Gravity wells change all photons, your experiment just makes lots of different unchanging photons.

If you want to go blow for blow through the general relativistic description of photon geodesics around arbitrary Kerr-Newman black holes then we can do that if you wish. Personally I prefer working with black D3-branes and using D7 branes to probe the geometry but hey, I'm weird.

 

Yes... In what post is the way presented?

And: What are gravity drives good for?

 

The basic idea is to genenerate and electromagnet field with a linearly changing frequency of the form \(f(t) = [\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}]t+f_0 \). \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t} > 10^{25} \). How you acheive these performance characteristics is really an engineering challenge. Personall, I would use LED's across a range of about 64 different frequencies. It's explained a little better below.

Gravity drives can be used as anti-gravity fields (which could reduce shipping costs and revolutionize transportation), with two emitters surfaces, one on the top and one on the bottom of a spacecraft, the one on the bottom expands space and acts as a repulsion field. The emitter on the top of the spacecraft collapses space above it. The net effect is a form of propulsion. When these repulsion and attraction fields are strong enough, they can be used for FTL propulsion.

Other uses include force fields and tractor beams.

 

This is just total woo.

 

Yep, absolutely. When someone knows as little science as the OP here, it's a simple matter to create all kinds of wonderful effects and imaginary devices.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And after all, we can always use more scifi writers. (As long as they aren't stupid enough to expect us to BELIEVE their stuff is REAL.) Heh-heh!

 

Photons are the phonons of the vacuum of space. Relativity tells us there is no absolute frame of reference and there is no absolute clock; I completely agree with that statement. But nobody said I couldn't subdivide the vacuum of space into all possible inertial reference frames between 0 and c.

Each inertial reference frame must carry the full frequency bandwidth, from 0.1Hz to 10^27Hz (or higher). That is what convinces me that each inertial frame is made of a medium that transmits the entire E&M bandwidth. Therefore, it makes sense that each inertial reference frame is made of waves of the form \(e^{i(kx - \omega t)}\). But there is a caveat.

I can assign an arbitrary Cartesian coordinate system in my inertial reference frame. I can look at the arbitrary point at x = 0. At this point, the plane waves of electromagnetism look like \(e^{-i\omega t}\). But look here: if I'm describing the vacuum of space-time, then these waves equations must obey \(c = \frac{\omega}{k} \), one for each frequency. So the wave equation I used at x = 0 is incomplete. It needs a whole set of wavelengths. For the x, y and z directions, ...

 

Whatever you don't like about this wave-function description of the vacuum, it has advantages. For one, I am mathematically modeling stuff that real has to exist. The waves themselves have the speed of light built into them. Remember permitivity and permeability of free space? In the equation \(c^2 = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0} \), permitivity and permeability are properties of the waves that make up the vacuum. That's why the speed of light is always c in the vacuum. So what if I want to add some hydrogen atoms to the vacuum? Then it's Occam's razor easy. I just add the wave-function of the hydrogen atom to the wave-functions of the vacuum. I'm adding apples to apples, wave-functions to wave-functions.

 

Except space is everywhere, paint and canvas are certainly made of matter, and as long as it is above absolute zero everything has energy. Look, no explosion!!!!

Your argument is just one long scientific misquotation on topics and mathmatics that you don't understand.

 

Believe,
Waves are the fundamental building blocks of everything, including space itself. If that were not true, then why is light a wave? What are electromagnetic emissions waves? Why are photons waves?

I think it was Alphanumeric who made the comment that cars (meaning photons) are distinct and different from the road (space); but this is wrong. Photons are just excitations of the vacuum; just like phonons are in a solid state crystal. Every particle, when it encounters its antiparticle, is annihilated into waves (gamma rays). The photon does not have an anti-particle. That's why harmonic oscillators are such a successful way to model the zero point energy of the vacuum.

If the vacuum of space is made out of wave-functions, then particle-wave duality and the 2 slit diffraction experiment are an expected consequence. If not, then particle-wave duality and 2 slit diffraction experiment are bizarre and out of place.

 

And your experimental evidence of this is what? Besides the voices in your head I mean.

 

Hi Mazulu!
Heres someone I think you should check out:http://scienceforums.com/topic/1164...uantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/

 

Mazulu,

Let's assume for a moment that the emission of a synthetic signal levitates the cat. You still have not explained the connection between FM and doppler. In the simplest cases doppler is due to a constant relative velocity without acceleration. The FM "analog" of this would be a shift of the carrier a small amount, but then it would hang there. It wouldn't modulate, that is, no subsequent frequency deviation occurs.

 

Common sense. Every QM problem is solved by calculating a wave-function. So common sense tells you that everything quantum, including the quantum vacuum, is made out of wave-functions.

 

The wave function as it is used in this case is a function of probablilty and a way to calculate that probablilty, nothing more. It is used to measure the universe, not explain why it does what it does.

 

I think you're asking why a linear synthetic frequency shift of the form \(f(t) = [\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}]t+f_0\) is, in some way, related to the Doppler frequency shifting that occurs in nature. It's a hunch. Let's list all of the times that frequency shift comes up in cosmology;

• 
  [1]gravitational redshift,
  [2]Doppler frequency shifting,
  [3]Hubble's law,
  [4]time dilation.

In every case, there is a familiar theme that goes like this. Light frequency shifts, from point A to B (point to point) in the presence of [1]acceleration, a transition from inertial reference frame A to B [2], when light travels from galaxy A to Observatory B during the expansion of the universe [3], and when time dilates from point A to B. If the vacuum of space itself is made of phase angles (wave-functions) of the form \(e^{i(kx - \omega t}\), then

• 
  [1]gravitational redshift is just a change in k and t as a function of distance,
  [2]Doppler frequency shifts occur because photons are just excitations of the wave-functions between inertial frames. The are obligated to uphold the invariance of c because \(c = \frac{\omega_A}{k_A}=\frac{\omega_B}{k_B}. [3]When the universe expands, the wave-function that the photon (excitation of wavefunction) is traveling on is undergoing an increase in wavelength, therefore a decrease in frequency. [4] for a transition of 100 cycles per second from point A to point B, the number of cycles is the same for both; all that changes is the duration of time. A point in space must pass the full bandwidth of frequency; it has oscillators at every frequency that can serve as clocks. [/LIST] So I have a hunch. If my hunch is right, it will rain money; if my hunch is wrong, I'm a fool. :) Here is my hunch, a synthesized frequency shift with a high [tex]\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\), of good quality, will:
  1. excite the specific wave-functions that have to do with time dilation and length contraction,
  2a. increase the Cosmological constant by a factor of (much much larger than 1), resulting in a curvature of space-time,
  2b. increase the intrinsic energy of the vacuum, resulting in the local expansion of space-time,
  3. generate a time dilation field which itself is identical to gravitational time dilation.
  
  Nobody has performed any experiments like this. On the rare chance that someone was modulating a sawtooth wave on the FM band, they didn't do it at LIGO, they weren't carefully looking for a gravity field. So the physics community has no raw data on the effectiveness of rapid/repeated frequency shifting of electromagnetic emissions as a means to induce a gravity wave or gravity field.

 

God told you.

Aliens told you.

Now, you have a hunch.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You made me think of something interesting. A frequency shift photon acceleration field generator is going to suffer power loss when it's used in air (N2, O2, CO2, ...). These molecules will absorb photons at certain frequencies. I was getting some training on testing/troubleshooting spectrum analyzers the other day. There is power loss at certain frequencies due to mechanical attachments (cable connections, ....); so the spectrum analyzer compensates for those frequencies by increasing power.

Sorry, I got off track a little. I guess my point is that a molecule might recognize a single photon if the photon matches the molecule's energy gap E_gap = hf. Beyond that, I expect the whole frequency shift to excite, and be absorbed, by what could be interpreted as a graviton. A graviton has never been detected before. But what if a graviton is something that can be excited by frequency shifting? Or perhaps cancelled out by a synthetic frequency shift.?