Discussion split from "Impossible engine works?"

[kristalris]

So the jury is still out on the question whether or not NASA et al have got it wrong or they have stumbled on something fundamental.

 

I would like to note that the principle of having a material object such as a spaceship seemingly act as a perpetual mobile is consistent with the idea that photons have mass and accelerate holding c in the Higgs field that is formed of moving mass as well in a graviton field that does the same. Gravitons spinning Higgs particles into Gluons forming strings, two of which form a photon.

 

Taking the entire cosmos then as a closed system the energy level will be and remain constant. No conflict then with the law of conservation of momentum. You simple as yet don't observe part of what is happening. For then the fundamental driving force of nature is not energy, but chaos and order in a never ending cycle. The effect is then caused by trading the constant movement in a way that accelerates your spaceship that consists of strings.

 

Fundamentally all Newton then. Simple.

[Strange]

 

I would like to note that the principle of having a material object such as a spaceship seemingly act as a perpetual mobile is consistent with the idea that photons have mass and accelerate holding c in the Higgs field that is formed of moving mass as well in a graviton field that does the same.

 

Syntax error at line 2.

[pantheory]

Pan - surely any change in the momentum needs to be accounted for. Shawyer claims (in my link right at top) that the geometry and construction of the chamber means that the microwaves propagate faster in one direction than the other - thus the transfer of momentum when the wave is reflected is higher at one end than the other. But the problem is that you cannot change the momentum without providing an external force - and that external force will be equal and opposite to the additional force created by the imbalance of the momentum transfer.

 

The whole concept seems to be analogous to claiming you could move a railway car by bouncing a tennis ball off the inside wall of both ends - but Roger Federer hits in one direction and I hit in the other. Fed will of course hit the ball much harder and the net force on the car from the ball only will be in the direction Fed is hitting - but Fed will also be exerting a greater reaction force through his feet onto the floor of the car in the opposite direction; in the end the car will wobble but not move steadily in one direction

 

There is enough information out there now from different sources whereby I think there is really something to this technology. IMO probably new physics is also involved. Yes, Shawyer's explanation of it does not really make sense to me either. Maybe he doesn't truly understand the mechanism(s) involved himself. I have some speculative ideas of how it might work which are similar to NASA's ideas that the ZPF is involved. I believe there will be an ongoing non-stop development of this technology which I expect will reach many of the expectations and hopes of its inventors and developers. Down the road I expect to see one or more Nobel Prizes come from this discovery and technology.

 

The scientific American issue "No wings, No wheels" future technology based upon Em-drive and related proto-types, was also an indication that "positive results" are coming from numerous sources, governments, researchers, etc. concerning this technology. According to sources, it seems that Shawyer may no longer be part of the loop concerning his advisory capacity and government research. He may no longer be informed of what they are doing, privy to the types of equipment or experiments being built or tested, their successes or failures, etc. But if this is not the case then it might be expected that he has signed security agreements and now can only discuss the "technologies" and results of research being developed by his own company.

Edited August 9, 2014 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

There is enough information out there now from different sources whereby I think there is really something to this technology. IMO probably new physics is also involved. [\quote]

It is not the new physics which scares me - it is the abandonment of old physics with no very good technical nor theoretical reason. If we abandon the idea of conservation of momentum - then almost everything in classical and quantum mechanical physics ends up going with it; the concept is crucial and fundamental

[kristalris]

 

Syntax error at line 2.

The syntax error is either with what I state or with what the OP states or in both. So you indeed have a syntax error in the sense that you are mistaken then. Logic. Because either you can disprove the claim in the OP (no one has done so as I'm lead to believe) and if you can't, then it is sound to take the observation as a hypothetical fact. I.e. given that it is correct how could that then possibly be? Well as I show you.

 

Because if we take as a fact hat indeed no error has been made in the observation-s-(!) then to at least give you an idea how that then could be: simplex veri sigilum: it remains Newton if you accept that photons can accelerate of their own accord. Only seemingly does that infringe on Newton namely if you assume that it becomes un-wounded and is built up of the same stuff through which it is moving: i.e. the massive Higgs particles of that same field.

 

Because then you can trade off unspun moving mass with spun moving mass having the energy levels involved remain the same. That would provide a sound Newton way to explain what is happening in the - repeatedly - observation of an engine seemingly breaking fundamental laws of physics.

There is enough information out there now from different sources whereby I think there is really something to this technology. IMO probably new physics is also involved. [\quote]
It is not the new physics which scares me - it is the abandonment of old physics with no very good technical nor theoretical reason. If we abandon the idea of conservation of momentum - then almost everything in classical and quantum mechanical physics ends up going with it; the concept is crucial and fundamental

An observation is an observation. A repeated observation is a repeated observation. This is a repeated observation.

 

So either they have repeatedly made some sort of an error or it is indeed something fundamental.

 

Well at least I provide a clue as how that then could be: not scary because newton isn't scary. It all becomes good old common sense Newton. And testable as then this test provides evidence in support for that idea for otherwise you don't have a clue. Well I do.

[Strange]

The syntax error is either with what I state.

 

I'm afraid I could not parse the sentence in question to even begin trying to extract any information from it.

[kristalris]

 

I'm afraid I could not parse the sentence in question to even begin trying to extract any information from it.

Forget "syntax error".

 

I'll make it more simple for you then: either what the OP depicts that NASA has done is incorrect then you / i.e. current science obviously don't have a problem. If however these observations are indeed correct then current science has a major and fundamental problem to solve, even at an "having a clue or idea" level.

 

Put even more simple on what I'm stating: in my model whether you jump up or down in a erratic way or not doesn't make one iota of difference to the total amount of energy in the cosmos. All mass is in that idea in perpetual motion. The only thing that can be altered is that different scenario's of movement can be played out. The OP observation - if indeed correct - then shows that it is possible to get a handle on this movement game at this deeper level. Providing us with a seeming perpetual mobile. I.e. a machine that provides more energy than is seen to be put in.

 

It can not be explained in any other way than that it is a yin and yang of order and chaos. The working of the instrument between the ears also points to this as orderly thought needs to be canceled out by disorderly dreaming in the sleep. Loose to much sleep and you go psychotic or end up as a schizophrenic i.e. dream state and reality get mixed up. What the OP machine does is in effect make use of turning one sort of disorder into another i.e. a moving spaceship.

[pantheory]

There is enough information out there now from different sources whereby I think there is really something to this technology. IMO probably new physics is also involved. [\quote]

It is not the new physics which scares me - it is the abandonment of old physics with no very good technical nor theoretical reason. If we abandon the idea of conservation of momentum - then almost everything in classical and quantum mechanical physics ends up going with it; the concept is crucial and fundamental

 

I understand your concern.

 

NASA's explanation of it is that the microwaves are pushing on the ZPF. The ZPF could be considered a kind of aether. For example: My hypothesis/ explanation of this phenomena is similar IMO to NASA's, concerning the gist of it. My preliminary hypothesis is that the microwaves would accordingly be pushing on the aether which would cause aether continuously flowing through the small end of the tapered device and exhausting through the big end. The result would be a lower aether pressure outside the small end of the device and a higher aether pressure outside of the big end of the device, hence propulsion. It would not matter that both ends of the device are closed since matter is mostly space and the aether accordingly could readily flow through them. In a pushing gravity model this would mean less gravity pushing in one direction than the other, hence acceleration.

 

Any explanation like mine involving the alteration of external forces, would not necessarily interfere with Newton's conservation of momentum but instead would change our understandings of gravity. My long term expectations, if this phenomena is proven to be valid, would be that our understandings of gravity (GR) and other aspects of modern physics (such as QM) will need to be changed (not necessarily the equations of them); But classical physics, for the most part, would remain intact.

Edited August 9, 2014 by pantheory

[kristalris]

 

I understand your concern.

 

NASA's explanation of it is that the microwaves are pushing on the ZPF. The ZPF can be considered a kind of aether. For example: My hypothesis/ explanation of this phenomena is similar IMO to NASA's, concerning the gist of it. My preliminary hypothesis is that the microwaves would accordingly be pushing on the aether which would cause aether continuously flowing through the small end of the tapered device and exhausting through the big end. The result would be a lower aether pressure outside the small end of the device and a higher aether pressure outside of the big end of the device, hence propulsion. It would not matter that both ends of the device are closed since matter is mostly space and the aether accordingly would readily flow through them. In a pushing gravity model this would mean less gravity pushing in one direction than the other, hence acceleration.

 

Any explanation like mine would not interfere with Newton's conservation of momentum but instead would change our understandings of gravity. My long term expectations, if this phenomena is proven to be valid, would be that our understandings of gravity (GR) and other aspects of modern physics (such as QM) will need to be changed (but not necessarily the equations of them); But classical physics, for the most part, would remain intact.

Exactly what I'm on about.

 

BTW your aether is to be assumed in the most simple way to be the Higgs field providing a non-Euclidean space. Yet to get the curved space we observe and to comply to Newton you need another particle to provide the Euclidean space because Newton will not have curving space particles without a force exerting on it. The graviton that can cause spin 2 and spin a Higgs particle into a Gluon will fit the bill. A most economic way of providing a testable concept.

 

Gravitation is thus simply an under-pressure as you say in the Higgs field or aether if you like.

 

Like a flat earth is still the law when within say the boundaries of a city map, so too given the boundary between QM and GR you can take the photon (and other mass-less particles they require) to be laws within those boundaries. And like with city maps, don't apply the law of flat earth when crossing the Atlantic. Ergo, with a TOE you per definition don't have boundaries then take the mass less photon (and particles) out and replace with a massive, non gravity exerting always curving photon that holds c in the Higgs field (aether) by accelerating in the curve and that is effected by gravity of larger slower strings that act like little black holes. Causing under-pressure.

 

The engine in the OP works then as you describe. It marries QM to Newton and Newton to GR. When you have a GR or QM problem reinstate the boundaries and your mass-less particles like you would the flat earth when making a city map. At least for the time being.

 

Again: there are several ways to test this. This repeated observation again strengthens this concept and if the observations can't be shown to be incorrect, then it falsifies current scientific view (that was already falsified by the simple fact that GR can't be married to QM.) Again because the never observed => galloping unicorn of a mass-less something from nothing particle assumption (!) probably causes the problem with GR and QM. You replace this galloping unicorn with a testable other galloping unicorn then you can describe the impossible OP problem in a probable and testable way.

 

And the only way to get an under-pressure is to have pressure in the system. Filling an infinite cosmos with moving un-split-able mass does that. Then the only way to get the seeming something from noting is to have strings collect mass by causing spin and thus a under-pressure in order to get a curved space.

 

That only leaves the to much order, waves and (non-) interference of light etc. to be explained. (And that is easy as well BTW)

Edited August 9, 2014 by kristalris

[pantheory]

Exactly what I'm on about.

 

BTW your aether is to be assumed in the most simple way to be the Higgs field providing a non-Euclidean space. Yet to get the curved space we observe and to comply to Newton you need another particle to provide the Euclidean space because Newton will not have curving space particles without a force exerting on it. The graviton that can cause spin 2 and spin a Higgs particle into a Gluon will fit the bill. A most economic way of providing a testable concept.

 

Gravitation is thus simply an under-pressure as you say in the Higgs field or aether if you like.

 

Like a flat earth is still the law when within say the boundaries of a city map, so too given the boundary between QM and GR you can take the photon (and other mass-less particles they require) to be laws within those boundaries. And like with city maps, don't apply the law of flat earth when crossing the Atlantic. Ergo, with a TOE you per definition don't have boundaries then take the mass less photon (and particles) out and replace with a massive, non gravity exerting always curving photon that holds c in the Higgs field (aether) by accelerating in the curve and that is effected by gravity of larger slower strings that act like little black holes. Causing under-pressure.

 

The engine in the OP works then as you describe. It marries QM to Newton and Newton to GR. When you have a GR or QM problem reinstate the boundaries and your mass-less particles like you would the flat earth when making a city map. At least for the time being.

 

Again: there are several ways to test this. This repeated observation again strengthens this concept and if the observations can't be shown to be incorrect, then it falsifies current scientific view (that was already falsified by the simple fact that GR can't be married to GR.) Again the mass-less something from nothing particle assumption (!) probably causes the problem with GR and QM.

 

If this effect turns out to be correct, I don't think their conclusions will be like mine since it would be radical for present-day physics. However, I expect they will come up with an ad hoc hypothesis to explain it that will leave the conservation of momentum intact while the new hypothesis may become an addendum to GR or another part of modern physics.

Edited August 9, 2014 by pantheory

[kristalris]

 

If this effect turns out to be correct, I don't think their conclusions will be like mine since it would be radical for present-day physics. However, I expect they will come up with an ad hoc hypothesis to explain it that will leave the conservation of momentum intact while the new hypothesis may become an addendum to GR or another part of modern physics.

Of course they will, because that too is explained by me as the forgotten instrument between the ears. A Bayesian inversion is what I earn my living on as a lawyer. And the something from nothing magic of Krauss et all shows this. Basic psychology. Yet, given enough reasons to doubt will topple the case and warrant serious investigation of testable concepts provided by those jokers with lateral relative thought and humour like Einstein and those with logic on human emotion shown by ironic (Poe's law) Shakespeare in combination thus Churchill creative above par educated guesswork to provide above par probable testable guesses. Einstein is a better lateral guesser than Churchill who is better than Shakespeare at that. Yet Einstein types don't understand irony and thus the instrument between the ears as well as a Churchill type who will find his master in Shakespeare in that field.

 

At the moment we probably don't need a superior relative lateral thinker like Einstein, for we have more relevant evidence the more so with the evidence of the OP. It probably gets more simple in stead of complicated and Newton is simple. And for common sense minds like the Churchill personality traits that combine the two forms of openness and thus doesn't excel in either, will probably solve the problem in a testable way. Even when not an as fast thinker as Churchill. Simple basic psychology.

 

Oh and BTW my model leaves the conservation of energy and dito momentum intact, for that is Newton!

 

Nobody is claiming this is something from nothing in terms of energy. The objection is conservation of momentum.

 

And the joke is moot. They were testing a working model. The problem is they also tested a non-working model, and got nominally the same answer. That points to a problem with the testing method.

I agree with that BTW. Yet, what I don't understand is how they even thought of a non working model in the first place? If an as I understand closed system exerts a forward momentum then the amount of observations to counter that are staggering. If I can accelerate my sailing boat in which I sit by blowing in my own sail, what sort of control do you expect? Having any kind of control doing then the same thing would prove that it then is possible to accelerate the system with those - observed - facts.

 

I.e. you only need a control when the alternate is unclear. Here it isn't. It is like observing an apple falling upwards and having the control citron doing the same under certain conditions. You didn't need the citron in the first pace.

Edited August 9, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

I.e. you only need a control when the alternate is unclear.

 

Since this is a proposal that violates conservation of momentum and has no theory to explain it, the exact feature that would supposedly be responsible for the thrust is pretty unclear.

[Sensei]

NASA's explanation of it is that the microwaves are pushing on the ZPF. The ZPF could be considered a kind of aether. For example: My hypothesis/ explanation of this phenomena is similar IMO to NASA's, concerning the gist of it. My preliminary hypothesis is that the microwaves would accordingly be pushing on the aether which would cause aether continuously flowing through the small end of the tapered device and exhausting through the big end. The result would be a lower aether pressure outside the small end of the device and a higher aether pressure outside of the big end of the device, hence propulsion.

 

This is kinda silly.

Is microwave photon creating aether?

Is there infinite amount of aether, so it can flow outside of device forever?

Is aether particle, so it can escape some system?

"low pressure of aether, high pressure of aether" this sounds like aether is kind of particle that is pressing on some area, and occupying some volume..

 

Then why not simplify it and say that some microwave photons escape system, while other one are absorbed by engine.. ?

 

It would not matter that both ends of the device are closed since matter is mostly space and the aether accordingly could readily flow through them..

You're contradicting your own model...

 

If aether is readily flowing through regular matter, how can there be "lower pressure of aether, or higher pressure of aether"... ?

 

 

[pantheory]

 

This is kinda silly.

Is microwave photon creating aether?

 

In aether models, aether is a background field like dark matter.

 

"Is there infinite amount of aether, so it can flow outside of device forever?"

 

Not infinite but the answer is yes.

 

"Then why not simplify it and say that some microwave photons escape system, while other one are absorbed by engine?"

 

That's a good explanation and answer but I cannot think of any mechanism in particular to explain how this could work since microwaves are readily absorbed if not reflected. Also such microwaves would need to be linearly directed. I also expect that both covers on each end of the device are needed for reflective purposes.

Edited August 10, 2014 by pantheory

[Sensei]

In aether models, aether is a background field like dark matter.

 

That's completely not needed to anything..

 

Aether is XIX century hypothetical medium through which light propagates..

 

After finding out light is particle, you don't need medium anymore.

Medium was needed for waves, by analogy- wave of sound needs air (typically), wave on water needs water etc. So XIX century physicists were applying this analogy also to light.

 

 

"Then why not simplify it and say that some microwave photons escape system, while other one are absorbed by engine?"

 

That's a good explanation and answer but I cannot think of any mechanism in particular to explain how this could work since microwaves are readily absorbed if not reflected.

 

 

See Shawyer engine - it's cone.

Bottom of cone has PI*r^2 area, while the rest has much higher area (and the sharper cone, the higher area).

 

For length = 4m, radius = 1m, you will have areas like on below picture:

 

If ratio of photons that are absorbed/reflected is always the same, cone will absorb much more photons than its bottom.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

In aether models, aether is a background field like dark matter.

 

So that makes quantum field theory an "aether theory" by your definition. Which makes the term "aether theory" completely meaningless. I am not sure why you keep using the word asn you have moved so far away from the original meaning. It can only be because you think the word has some magic power of its own.

[kristalris]

 

Since this is a proposal that violates conservation of momentum and has no theory to explain it, the exact feature that would supposedly be responsible for the thrust is pretty unclear.

Indeed, yet not having a theory and repeatedly observing apples and even citrons falling upwards doesn't make them fall down.

 

The question is of course have the different groups that claim the observations made repeated mistakes? I.e. current science says all swans are white and they claim to have observed several black swans. Yet it could be they turned off the light and have mistaken a white swan for a black one. Akin the claim of cold nuclear fusion forgetting the adjunct mountain.

 

As you correctly point out there are some issues that need clarification.

 

To Sensei, Pantheory and Strange:

The discussion on eather or field is IMO a non discussion. I think calling the Higgs field a field for it is local yet assumed even observed to be present everywhere where we can assume particles of the SM to exist in our visible universe, being the latter probably only a small part of the system of our universe in a probable multi-verse that most scientists as do I assume to exist..

 

To all:

 

In my model as said there are two separate ways and a combined way that the OP observation can be explained.

 

One is in effect that we measure DE in a micro way. This as such is highly improbable to be measurable in such an easy way for then we should of noticed this effect much sooner. I.e. the effect that all matter acts like a little black hole and speeds up in the Higgs field resulting in a Champagne bubble cosmology.

 

The other effect is the Yin and Yang of two fields of gravitons and Higgs particles having one cause disorder in the other. This provides you with more bang for the buck, yet only of short duration.

 

So the only way that this seen from my model can work is in the combination of the two.

 

You start off a process by adding energy in a cone like structure that creates more chaos in one side and order in the other side of the cone. In the process of stabilizing the order a under pressure is formed outside the system exerting a force on that system. So far so good yet that should in it self stop when you stop adding energy.

 

Yet in sufficient vacuum you get an extreme amount of order outside the cone. The light that is trapped in the cone will get repaired by the Higgs field as the way of least disorder in the system. This repairing of the light in the cone makes the effect of DE measurable.

 

That a photon can be "repaired" is what we observe with entanglement. The photon is to be seen as two spiraling strings of six Gluons each: Alice and Bob. Interlocked and at straight horizontal and vertical angles when un-polarized and both in one axes when polarized. (Akin two key rings that interlock.) The crystal used in the test splits the un-polarized photon and helps create sufficient order to have the graviton field spin two times six higgs particles into gluons forming two strings: yet if one is horizontaly polarized of course the other is vertically polarized. You in effect split one photon that is repaired in a way forming two photons: one Alice if polarized vertically the other Bob will be polarized horizontally.

 

Only when we can generate a photon in a way we can predict and control will we observe that it is deterministic at this level.

 

Yet it is this principle of order and chaos and thus repair extracting the required energy out of the Higgs and Graviton fields that keeps the micro system going sufficiently to become measurable. This repairing is in effect gravity because it is extracted out of the field, causing an under pressure and hence the pressure of the field pushes the cone in that direction. The repair in this case contrary to entanglement doesn't generate new photons but keeps the existing ones alive so to speak.

 

The cone shape is required to get the difference in pressure.No photons need escape.

 

So seen this way you only need to start up the system and it will take off so to speak. Akin DE, yet not quite the same because it is the required repair of the photon that causes the under pressure and thus measurable force that exceeds the amount of energy put into the system at the start.

Edited August 10, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

The discussion on eather or field is IMO a non discussion.

 

I agree.

 

 

I think calling the Higgs field a field for it is local yet assumed even observed to be present everywhere where we can assume particles of the SM to exist in our visible universe, being the latter probably only a small part of the system of our universe in a probable multi-verse that most scientists as do I assume to exist.

 

What is "SM"?

 

And I don't know that most scientists assume there is a multi-verse. Some are pretty vocally opposed to it.

 

 

I.e. the effect that all matter acts like a little black hole and speeds up in the Higgs field resulting in a Champagne bubble cosmology.

 

What does it mean to "speed up in the Higgs field"? You seem to be saying that the Higgs field can be used as an absolute frame of reference. Why pick on the Higgs field? Why not the electromagnetic field, the electron field or ...

 

 

The other effect is the Yin and Yang of two fields of gravitons and Higgs particles having one cause disorder in the other.

 

I assume you have no mathematics behind this so it is just word salad, as far as I can see.

 

 

So the only way that this seen from my model can work is in the combination of the two.

 

You start off a process by adding energy in a cone like structure that creates more chaos in one side and order in the other side of the cone. In the process of stabilizing the order a under pressure is formed outside the system exerting a force on that system. So far so good yet that should in it self stop when you stop adding energy.

 

If you have a model, you should be able to quantify this effect. Can you?

 

 

Only when we can generate a photon in a way we can predict and control will we observe that it is deterministic at this level.

 

Why do you think we can't do this now?

[kristalris]

 

I agree.

 

 

What is "SM"?

 

And I don't know that most scientists assume there is a multi-verse. Some are pretty vocally opposed to it.

 

 

What does it mean to "speed up in the Higgs field"? You seem to be saying that the Higgs field can be used as an absolute frame of reference. Why pick on the Higgs field? Why not the electromagnetic field, the electron field or ...

 

 

I assume you have no mathematics behind this so it is just word salad, as far as I can see.

 

 

If you have a model, you should be able to quantify this effect. Can you?

 

 

Why do you think we can't do this now?

SM = standard model.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse well in this Wikipedia I at least count more pro this than against this. Anyway a lot take it to be the best explanation.

 

Why take the Higgs field? Well, that would be the most simple way to explain it all that is why. Occams razor. Most economical way in producing an integral and testable model. The latter does not need mathematics other than drawings sketches and basic verbal logic, nice analogies. You must scientifically look at the idea or concept for a model that is most elegant and integral. that is what should count besides its test-ability.

 

And Strange you seem to miss a wee point here: if indeed the OP shows a black swan => current science goes bust not only in current way of explaining how this can be but also in correct procedure. Correct procedure excludes mathematics in this faze for the same reason as why we humans survived the past 100000 years as failed apes on a ape norm. We survived without mathematics for the greater part of it.

 

Proper guesswork simply doesn't require mathematics, it requires lateral thought as openness on the goal combined with openness on the instrument between the ears in this specific question. I.e. lateral humour and irony before you get to the mathematics. It shows you where to start looking for answers. Yet people who fall short on those traits simply can't understand that. That too is part of current psychology as described by Kuhn.

 

Anyway do you have even the foggiest as to how the OP can be explained? If you don't then you have nothing. And simply saying they must have made a mistake won't cut the chase either in proper science. Albeit I agree it could be that they indeed have made a mistake. Yet that would only show for my model that we still can't get a handle on the problem. Yet my model remains objectively testable and that is what counts besides observations. So it is logically and thus scientifically neigh infinitely superior to your nothing on the subject. I at least have something.

 

And if you have something explaining the OP what is it then?

 

And finally: can we repeatedly fire off a single photon in a entanglement experiment having every shot provide the same Alice and Bob result? Or, how can we measure that the photon is in exactly the same state when fired repeatedly?

Edited August 10, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

Why take the Higgs field? Well, that would be the most simple way to explain it all that is why. Occams razor. Most economical way in producing an integral and testable model. The latter does not need mathematics other than drawings sketches and basic verbal logic, nice analogies.

 

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. The Higgs mechanism is extremely complex and cannot be understood by means of analogies and verbal logic. If you think it can, then you are fooling yourself. Any conclusions you reach by this method are worthless.

 

 

And Strange you seem to miss a wee point here: if indeed the OP shows a black swan => current science goes bust not only in current way of explaining how this can be but also in correct procedure.

 

Science has encountered black swans before and survived.

 

 

Correct procedure excludes mathematics in this faze for the same reason as why we humans survived the past 100000 years as failed apes on a ape norm. We survived without mathematics for the greater part of it.

 

Again, this is complete nonsense. Modern science cannot be done without mathematics. How do we even know that this device might work? Because they have measured and quantified the thrust.

 

We may have survied for millennia without mathematics but we were not doing science.

 

 

Proper guesswork simply doesn't require mathematics

 

And isn't science.

 

If, for example, someone had guessed that expansion of the universe was accelerating, then they would deserve (and would get) zero credit when they turned out to be right.

 

 

Anyway do you have even the foggiest as to how the OP can be explained?

 

Currently, experimental error seems most plausible. At least it is a hypothesis based on something we know exists. It will be interesting to see what further and better experiments show.

 

 

If you don't then you have nothing.

 

Nonsense. It is quite possible to show that an argument is wrong, without having an alternative hypothesis.

 

 

And finally: can we repeatedly fire off a single photon in a entanglement experiment having every shot provide the same Alice and Bob result?

 

You need to expl;ain what that means, I'm afraid. Do you mean, can we generate entengled photons with a known spin? No, because if we know what the spin is, they are not entengled.

[kristalris]

Well Strange you are dodging the issue. So I'll bring the issue back to the OP question. Your only position make or break is thus that NASA et al have probably made a mistake.

 

Now assume they haven't made a mistake, and I thus force you to take that as a fact. What then? Mathematics? Or proper use of the instrument between the ears based on all known observations taken as fact? Of course only those with a creative brain can hope to get anywhere with the latter. Mathematics won't help you solve that problem other than when extrapolation can solve the problem, which is simply not always the case. Especially not when it is clear (which was already clear from the start) that we are in need of a paradigm shift. Even in procedure because you need to get back to basics.

 

Remains you don't have the foggiest if we take the OP as a fact and I do.

[Strange]

Well Strange you are dodging the issue.

 

I'm not dodging the issue at all. You asked me what explanation I had, I gave you one. You don't like it? <shrug> Not my problem.

 

 

Now assume they haven't made a mistake, and I thus force you to take that as a fact. What then? Mathematics? Or proper use of the instrument between the ears based on all known observations taken as fact? Of course only those with a creative brain can hope to get anywhere with the latter. Mathematics won't help you solve that problem other than when extrapolation can solve the problem, which is simply not always the case. Especially not when it is clear (which was already clear from the start) that we are in need of a paradigm shift. Even in procedure because you need to get back to basics.

 

If it is true, then it can either be explained by current theory or it needs new theory.

 

Of course, either approach would require (depend on) mathematics. The effect would have to be measured and quantified (in case you miss the point: how do you do that without mathematics?)

 

New hypotheses would have to be developed and tested. This obviously requires the "instrument between the ears"; science is a highly creative discipline that depends on imagination. This is so obvious, I'm not sure it even needs stating. But you seem hung up on it, so there it is.

 

However to test these hypotheses, they would need to make qauntitative (there it is again) predictions c=that can be compared with measurements (begin to get the idea yet?)

 

 

Remains you don't have the foggiest if we take the OP as a fact and I do.

 

You may think you do. I think all you have is meaningless waffle made up of a few scientific sounding words stirred together at random. If I am wrong, then please use your model to caluclate the strength of the effect under one or more scenarios so we can find out if your predictions turn out to be correct.

[kristalris]

 

I'm not dodging the issue at all. You asked me what explanation I had, I gave you one. You don't like it? <shrug> Not my problem.

 

 

If it is true, then it can either be explained by current theory or it needs new theory.

 

Of course, either approach would require (depend on) mathematics. The effect would have to be measured and quantified (in case you miss the point: how do you do that without mathematics?)

 

New hypotheses would have to be developed and tested. This obviously requires the "instrument between the ears"; science is a highly creative discipline that depends on imagination. This is so obvious, I'm not sure it even needs stating. But you seem hung up on it, so there it is.

 

However to test these hypotheses, they would need to make qauntitative (there it is again) predictions c=that can be compared with measurements (begin to get the idea yet?)

 

 

You may think you do. I think all you have is meaningless waffle made up of a few scientific sounding words stirred together at random. If I am wrong, then please use your model to caluclate the strength of the effect under one or more scenarios so we can find out if your predictions turn out to be correct.

Of course in the faze of getting the concept of the model tested mathematics is indispensable tool as in subsequently working the concept of a model to a integral mathematical model that has yet further testable hypothesis. Ultimately defined correctly in a fully mathematical model to be taken within assumed inherently un-testable boundaries as a law.

 

Thing is if we take the OP as a fact, I can immediately point as to where to start looking and testing. You simply can't. So I'd be off the mark immediately. Because you are only interested in mathematics I haven't given the entire model as yet. And no it is not ad randomly strung together. It is logically and elegantly strung together. Science is the systematic i.e. logical affair. It is not in its deepest level thus a mathematical affair. Our brain simply doesn't work on mathematics. That is why. It works on intuition. Testable thoughts either spring or don't spring to mind on a problem. That is the creative faze you subsequently rigorously test with use of mathematics. Some are creative other less so and some are simply hardly creative even in the best of circumstances. And indeed as you also acknowledge it requires creativity. Mathematics and creativity are two different things. Finally get it?

 

Further more the OP situation NASA team only has to show in a measurable way that more energy comes out than is put in. measurable only in the sense that they can say it is clearly more than the other without having to be exact. They do not have to show a theory. For then current science is already falsified. Just like observing an apple falling upwards with an unknown speed would falsify Newtons law on the subject. Proving and thus falsifying your position that it requires more than logical reasoning that you incorrectly always see as word salad.

 

What you further more fail to acknowledge is that the verbal concept of the model was given by me prior to the OP find. Thus providing further evidence of being correct as long as NASA et al aren't proven wrong and all the more so when NASA is proven correct.

 

Eh, and you gave an explanation on the working of the OP other than NASA being wrong? Must of missed that then. In which post was that?

Edited August 10, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

Thing is if we take the OP as a fact, I can immediately point as to where to start looking and testing.

 

I see absolutely no reason to belive that. As you don't understand the Higgs mechanism, for example, any claims you make about the Higgs field being relevant are just random speculation.

 

 

Mathematics and creativity are two different things.

 

More nonsense.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Strange

[kristalris]

 

I see absolutely no reason to belive that. As you don't understand the Higgs mechanism, for example, any claims you make about the Higgs field being relevant are just random speculation.

 

Not random speculation, yet based on what scientists explained as to the working thereof.

 

As I understand it it is a field that is present everywhere where we can assume particles of the standard model can exist in our visible universe. When matter travels through it it is held a bit back and the Higgs field provides mass to that matter, to part of it anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism Assuming thus this Wikipedia page is correct.

 

My model that was already given prior to the CERN find was consistent with that even before I knew of the Higgs mechanism.

 

Why the Higgs, well it is the only field we have that is nearly everywhere, and constant not variable, now isn't it? Well then, given the correctness of the observation in the OP what would then be our prime suspect for investigation for a creative mind? Now try and think in an Occam's razor like adult way and make an educated guess like solving a crime scene like a scientist would do that if asked to do that quickly? That is of course come up with a guess covering all known observations by you in one integral elegant way. Be it verbally or mathematically. For all other fields don't provide this mass providing an elegant jump to gravity.

 

More nonsense.

?

 

I say mathematics and creativity are not the same. You say nonsense. So they are the same? A computer uses mathematics correctly if properly functional and programmed. You think a computer is thus creative?

Edited August 10, 2014 by kristalris