Mordred

Well I'm a firm believer that the textbooks are the best resource compared to Pop media books. A couple of good low math level books is "Barbera Rydens "Introductory to Cosmology" As well as Matt Roose "Introductory to Cosmology"

I'd hate to see you struggle with energy conservation in the zero energy universe model

Might very well be but without detail you can't compare it to similar designs. I do question the patent itself as anyone filing a patent should check the market value prior to paying the patent fees

yeah I understand Acme, I should have made this portion clearer. " However he never specified the type of gyroscope if he uses a mechanical gyroscope this will induce spin" just a side note The OP could also intentionally vary the friction of duo propelles using the right components. However I have no idea if thats part of his design

Yeah I was aware of those but without knowing the style being used in the design itself.? I think ppl are missing a key detail. Nothing in the idea presented above is unique. There has probably been thousands of similar designs. On another forum I visit (engineering forum) I've read several hundred similar proposals over the past 10 years. So what makes the OP's design any better than any other similar design? How well has the designed been engineered? To what level? How cost effective is the design? The OP isn't asking How to design the craft,he's already designed it. he's asking if his design has value

I'm not saying that. I'm saying we can't determine that without the proper details on the design, you can't patent an idea only a design. Also the patent office doesnt care if the design works or not.

oh I agree, but hes asking if the design has value without a decent description of the design. lets take for instance the last link you provided. if you want a propeller design to accomplish tension on the sails you wouldnt need a gyroscope. You could just use a pinwheel design on the sails and let the craft spin. Now this line in the OP hints at using a gyroscope to stabilize the craft. However he never specified the type of gyroscope if he uses a mechanical gyroscope this will induce spin. "To prevent damage to our payload we shall keep it stationary using a gyroscope at the center of the system." However a gyroscope isn't commonly used as a stabilizer, its used to sense the orientation of the craft then send that info to the stabilizer. That led me to question what his stabilizer is? one might niavely think 2 opposing direction propellers would stabilize a craft, but once you look into keeping the momentum gain on each perfectly balanced this becomes problematic. lets take for example two propellers on the same shaft. Both with friction reduction bearings of some form. (key note reduction isnt the same as total) not to mention keeping the coefficient of friction perfectly balanced. " A magnetic bearing can be used to reduce friction between the spinning ends and non spinning center" the lead propeller will induce current patterns onto the second propellor the net result is that they will not spin at the same rate. Add this and the problem of keeping the two bearings to shaft coefiicient of friction perfectly balanced equates a problematic design. Surprising enough this doesnt change even on a multishaft design. So how can we determine the value of his design without the key details explained in a more complete answer

if the craft is spinning with the mill you would get no gain from the mill, you may as well just have a sail. Though it doesnt sound like hes using the sail to get thrust but rather to maintain orbit to generate power? The OP needs to better explain the design and its purpose, we are guessing too much due to the brief nature of the post

They work with a good degree of accuracy within the limits of SR. Which is usually the observer at rest. If the observer is also inertial one can apply calibration corrections. see here. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&rct=j&q=minkowski%20space%20time%20diagram&ved=0ahUKEwiYuNLFgKjLAhWDLmMKHa-yC4gQFgg-MAs&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F0703002&usg=AFQjCNG05MLRMRIA2O4Ruuzujq8vQfL7NQ

That would be difficult to answer, Here perhaps this 3d image will help. http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Sources.php http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3050898/When-supermassive-black-holes-COLLIDE-Best-3D-simulation-reveals-space-time-warps-cataclysmic-event.html Second link is a simulation As you can see they can be extremely erratic

True I initially read his post as a single mill. Though I also don't see any gain compared to a simple solar sail

OK well I did some digging I beleive this page has the equations your looking for. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Some_Transformation_Equations

the first image is the longitudinal or plus polarization, the second is similar to the first but rotated by 45 degrees its a cross polarization. The paper you posted has the metrics but doesnt explain that the reason the polarizations is a quadrupole is due to gravity being spin 2 staitistics. The details on how each is determined is math intense and involves the EFE. Rather than try to post the metrics it would be better to post a decent article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0309058v2.pdf one thing to note when the x axis + and minus contracts the y axis + and - expands by the same amount. a good animation is here. see the gifs on the right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

OK David I've asked this question before "what is mass" [latex]E^2=(pc^2)+(m_o^2)[/latex] now in the past radiation is extremely high, so there is more kinetic energy. Today radiation is low and there is more matter. Remember matter and energy is interchangeable. The paper you posted before had metrics that showed BOTH conserved quantities as well as not being conserved. T The part you keep missing is "HOW you define the system your measuring and by what metrics" The other detail is the paper was written in 2008, This was prior to the discovery of the Higgs Boson. So the Higgs field contribution was never included in his calculation. The other part you need to grasp is that energy is the ability to perform work, mass is resistance to inertia. When you have more radiation there is more kinetic energy. When you have more mass, (ressitance to inertia you have less ability to perform work) Now if you look at the equation above you can see that energy and mass is not interchanged on a unit per unit basis. We've also mentioned that GR doesnt work well on energy conservation on a global scale. The FLRW metric by default will suffer the same problem. However thats an artifact of the metrics. So here is a different metric approach "It is a well known fact that one cannot construct a conserved stress-energy tensor in general relativity except for space-times having particular symmetries [7]. The fact that the stress-energy tensor for the matter fields alone is not conserved is not surprising since they exchange energies and momenta with the gravitational field. Furthermore, there is no notion corresponding to the stress-energy of the gravitational field which is a generally covariant tensor. However, we can introduce the concept of stress-energy for the gravitational field if we take the view that the general relativity can be treated as a spin-2 field theory in Minkowski background." has potential but still being developed. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9502078

Please note the following.

How would you keep the center from spinning with the rest. There isn't sufficient friction in space to prevent the center from spinning with the arms. (Just noted Externet asked the same question)

Interesting question. Gravity waves propogate outward in all directions. An easy way to visualize would be a sound wave from say an explosion. The type of wave however is a quadruple polarization transverse wave. The spacetime densities (medium)will however influence the rate of travel Most animations will give you a false image of the wave travelling along a plane. (It's top tricky to model it in 3d) so images use the rubber sheet analogy

You posted the solutions page, is there something you don't understand by this statement? "Hence in order to accelerate a body in a given direction, we may apply any force in the desired direction, but must at the same time apply at right angles another force whose magnitude is given by equation. 5. https://en.wikisourc...nd_Acceleration

see above

I never trust any vixra article. Many science forums have literally banned that as a valid reference for good reason lol. Even if the rebuttal was on a reputable site a mere 4 pages with 3 to 4 basic equations wouldnt be sufficient.

Don't bother, I just read the paper its utter garbage. Its a measly 4 pages and uses extremely basic formulas. He didnt include observer affect on energy via redshift. However posted one basic thermodynamic equation without proper correlation. An average high school student could write a better paper. For one thing he never mentioned is the Observer influence is detailed in the stress-momentum tensor of the Einstein field equations. including the pressure term.

I don't care about your postulates I'm answering your errors in the posts here. I also read your other threads. My replies still stand Relativity uses the Lorentzian transformations. So how do you propose to use non Lorentzian but still use relativity? In a statement earlier This thread you stated the equipment compensates. Being made up of atoms etc. Explain how the Fizeou and Sagnac equipment compensate? That was what I was replying to earlier. Ps the Maxwell equations you mentioned earlier also uses the Lorentz transformation rules.

Thanks for the terminology clarifications above. Have you tried testing the formulas through proper distance calculations? I still don't see how a homogeneous and isotropic condition can be maintained with the two coordinate system your adapting. Though I realize your still working on the math. by matter I assume your referring to fermions.? Your going to need to clarify this term usage. bosons don't count as matter particles only fermions do. This is based on the Pauli exclusion principle. The next question is "How will your model work during the radiation dominant era? The % of matter is much smaller with the % of radiation being much higher leading to a higher rate of expansion per Mpc. Higher value for Hubbles constant. (not per size of universe).

Sounds like a topic for a seperate thread so we don't hijack this thread from the OP.

read what he's trying to model.