Ghideon

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Ah, I missed that. I disagree on that point.

It looks like Strange has fully understood the point i try to make, explained it better than me and managed to highlight an issue that i did not see! I will therefore add a few things.

But first: there seems to be an agreement that ”particles carrying momentum” is reasonable model for the pulse as long as no detailed calculations are needed for the interaction at cable B. Therefore that simple model will be used again.

What I missed to explain is that i looked at the best possible outcome only. The interaction at B happens in such a way that all of the incoming momentum P is used to generate an impulse that push at cable B. As Strange pointed out there are other possibilities. Let's draw some and clarify, I’ll draw the complete rig with cables A and B this time. First t=t2.

An electromagnetic pulse, modelled as a set of particles traveling away from cable A is about to reach cable B. Pulse is a circular set of particles but I simplify and draw only particles along X axis carrying momentum P and -P (as I did before)

Next:

First case, the optimal one. B manages to prevent any particles from leaving the system. Exactly how the interaction works is not important. This is the only case i mentioned in the earlier post. Result, due to conservation of momentum is that the rig gains momentum P to the left. As Strange has pointed out several times, an extremely inefficient way to propel the rig compared to use energy to send only pulse -P. P and -P are, also noted by Strange just a tiny part of the energy sent from cable A since A sends the pulse 360 degrees.

next:

Second case, what I think Strange pointed out and correctly expressed disagreement about. This is an interaction with a pulse/field around B in such a way that total momentum of any particles leaving the rig is zero. 

Next:

Third case supplied as reference; cable B fails to interact at all and particles continue past/through B. Total momentum of pulse leaving system is zero. Rig will not move. 

Again: The system does not ”work”, it may be able to move some if the cable B manages to block some of the pulse to pass and exit the system. Using Strange’s numbers: Cable B does not help the propulsion, it stops it from wasting 3600/3600 of the energy. So instead ”only” 3599/3600 of the energy is wasted. 

The curious reader could re-read the thread and count how many ways the above have already been told, there are several analogies that says the same in this thread. 

45 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I ask you the same question that I asked to swansont. Where are the errors I make in the pictures Fig. 4-06, Fig. 4-07 and how I describe the phenomenon?
Be specific, please.

What postulates am I allowed to use?

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

Yes, I was referring to N/s.

I don’t know of any application of N/s in the situations in this thread (or others).

Ns (newton second, equivalent to kgm/s) on the other hand, momentum (or impulse), is important.

What are you attempting to describe using N/s? 

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

Do you think this system could work? 

See my analysis. Ask questions if unclear.

Note: I simplified the and had to catch up on EMPs, there are more room for errrors than usual in that post.

18 hours ago, MPMin said:

This process is happening at an extremely fast rate enabling many pulses of force to occur per second so that even if the force per cycle was very small, the cumulative effect could be a large force.

I think the force would be the same but occur more often.

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

the force per time output

What is that? What are the units? I think you mean something else than N/s (Newton per second)

Did you read my last post?

Disclaimer: I’ve access to phone and paper only, not able to produce good pictures. There is no analysis of how possible it is to create the device.

Here is the initial situation at time t=0. A and B are mounted in a rig, cables can't be moved independently. Cables are straight and seen running straight into the paper. Current is switched on in cable A.The rig is big so time of travel at speed of light across the rig is not neglectible.

At some small time t1some amount of electromagnetic radiation have radiated away and the current is switched of. There will be magnetic and electric energy. We chose to model the radiation using particles. There are probably other usable models. Important thing is that cables A and B are not attracted by force (Ampere’s force law) but act more like antennas far apart.

Here is a crucial simplification that other readers may have opinions about: the radiated pulse is symmetrical and we do not care about the exact composition; photons, electrons or other. We only care about the momentum carried by the radiated particles. Each individual particle carries momentum directed away from the center of the cable A.

There are two components of the momentum, x and y. Since momentum in y direction is never part of an interaction and has total sum of zero we simplify and analyze x-component only. We will analyze the particles that will later interact with a field around cable B and the particles radiated in 180 degree opposite direction. This simplification allows for a new diagram showing two pulses traveling in opposite directions carrying momentum P and -P. Note the convention, I prefer the pulse later reaching cable B to have positive sign of momentum P.

At time t=t2 the pulse reaches cable B. Again a simplification. The cable is surrounded by a symmetrical field interacting with incoming pulse. then, the maximum amount of momentum gained by interaction with the pulse is P. We do not need to model the exact interaction of the fields. There is no magical way to gain more momentum than what the incoming pulse carries.

The result is that the complete rig with both cables starts moving to the left. 

Now some final notes. Note that I discuss only the x components of the circular pulse. The movement of the rig is not due to momentum P of left pulse. It it is momentum -P of right pulse that does the job. -P is just prevented from doing so until cable B stops the left pulse momentum P. If cable A had sent only the burst -P the movement would have begun at t=0. Now the rig is stationary until time t=t2. 

Had cable A sent only pulse P then the rig would have moved to the right for a short while and then stopped when cable B interact with left pulse. Left pulse is not adding momentum P, left pulse prevents the rig from moving until cable B stops the left pulse. 

9 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

also on this website with a new variation on the double slit experiment allowing us to cross check

18 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

A solution to the double slit experiment with a new variation of the experiment to cross check is verifiable/science

On this website, sciencforum.net, no such thing as an experiment verifying multiple time dimensions, can be found at this time.

I think I can explain but I need some more time to write it down. I’ll post later today. 

44 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Perhaps if i explain my theory in seperate aspects you could tell me which part of my theory is wrong? Is it ok if i reconstruct my theory in a ‘if then’ sequence?

A theory should be based on something, papers or books from mainstream science. What postulates do you start from? Can you provide references to material we can start from? Something you have read and understod and based your work on?

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

Its hard for me to accept what you are saying when what you are saying is unclear to me

Maybe you can provide some references to material you base your claims upon? Material you have read and understod. If we base the discussion on some sufficiently detailed sources any misunderstandings may be sorted out?

25 minutes ago, WaveLengthOfGod said:

I've been with God thousands of times

Can you have someone record and document the next few times you leave?

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

I’m not suggesting that my proposed system is an adaptation of a glass weapon to generate propulsion.

True. Since you insist on analogies the correct analogy is that your system is a Gauss gun with the projectile welded solid in the barrel, trying to propel iself. (In the right context quite funny I think.)

I think @Strange is correct, per Maxwell an EMP will contain a mix of energies. But one may be dominant. There is a short text on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

Quote

EMP energy may be transferred in any of four forms:

Electric field

Magnetic field

Electromagnetic radiation

Electrical conduction

Due to Maxwell's equations, a pulse of any one form of electromagnetic energy will always be accompanied by the other forms, however in a typical pulse one form will dominate.

In general, only radiation acts over long distances, with the others acting over short distances. There are a few exceptions, such as a solar magnetic flare.

3 minutes ago, MPMin said:

The meaning behind the question is if the photons produced are a by product how do they effect the system? Are you saying there’s no propulsion in the system because all the moment is lost to the photons instead of moving the craft? 

Momentum is not "lost", momentum is conserved. By proper application of that principle you can propel things. Invalid application gives disappointing results, or leads to wrong conclusions such as belief in the possibility of reactionless drives.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

The problem with the magnetic fields, is that while they are magnetic fields, they are still "attached" (causally) to the wires that generate that generate them. Once they are "free" they are no longer just magnetic fields, but electromagnetic radiation. That will carry momentum away. Unless they hit (and are absorbed/reflected) by part of the craft.

I think the above is a better way to explain what i tried to do with words "static" vs "transient". 
My two cases using causality as word:
1: Causally attached = "Ampere's force law", force and equal counter force inside the structure, between cables=no propulsion. Modeled by fields or simply apply Ampere's force law directly. 
2: Causally detached = momentum is carried away, modeled by particles leaving one part of a system and then leaves the system or hits another part of the system.

1 does not apply as far as I can see, not useful to model the proposed system.
2 is useful; particles moving around, obeying the conservation of momentum.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So, I thought you had got the whole "conservation of momentum" thing. This makes me doubt it.

I realize that this answer is much better than mine! I suggest we put my idea on hold until @Strange ’s post is addressed; my attempt at a model would be based on, and require the reader to understand, conservation of momentum. (And maybe the model of EMP is better handled in a separate thread).

8 hours ago, MPMin said:

I cant see the correlation between throwing a rock in every direction compared to throwing a magnetic field in every direction

Since you started the thread asking about rocks we have used analogies and if you still do not see the connection to the cable situation we need to try a different approach without any rocks or rockets. Ok? The problem may be that we lack a common model for the magnetics and cable interaction, the sketches and general statements lacks the details needed to communicate any issues. Shall we move on and just look at the magnetic idea only? I think a few simplifications can be made so we do not need to use the full set of Maxwell’s equations. I can only think of two alternative concepts to start with: “static” or “transient”.

Static, in its simplest case, is Ampere's force law*. Other basic cases are a electromagnets or electric transformers.

Transients (electromagnetic pulse**) would be things radar pulses or solar flares etc. Exactly how the puls behaves or what it consists of is not yet important, I will address that in follow ups. The important thing is that in a transient case there is no time for the system to “settle”, the distance and time of travel (at speed c) between parts affects the outcome.

Since you switch of the current in the first cable before the signal has reached second cable a model would need be based on transients. Would this work as a method? If so I’ll try to suggest a very simplified model.

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law#Special_case:_Two_straight_parallel_wires

**)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

16 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Is it accurate to consider an electromagnetic pulse emanating outward from the wire in every direction comparable to a rock with mass being thrown in a particular direction?

 

Again: Any propulsion generated will be from the pulses sent in any other directions, out from the system, like a rocket thrusting vapors into space. Sending pulses (or shifting matter) inside the system does not generate propulsion. 

Here is the rocket again. This time "improved" to work as the cable sending pulse in every direction and another cable interacting with the pulse. Both cable part of the same system. IF this rocket moves, in which direction will it go? Which one of the engines does not have any contribution to the propulsion? Why not do as @Strange have said numerous times, use one pulse in one direction? Does the contraption below look efficient? 

7 hours ago, MPMin said:

I believe this could develop a lot more thrust than any photon or laser style propulsion 

No it will not.

Thanks for pictures, makes it easier to see the idea. It fails since you can't beat the conservation of momentum.

1: Ampère's_force_law Special_case: Two straight parallel wires, currents in wires makes them attract or repel. In this case there is a force F acting on the left cable, and an equal force F in the opposite direction acting on the right cable. If cables are mounted on a common rig the force is an internal stress on the rig. No propulsion will occur. But since current is switched of very fast this situation is not applicable, we look at the second case. 

2: Electromagnetic pulse, a transient electromagnetic disturbance*, is sent from right to left cable. The pulse will carry momentum. This is the same as throwing a rock from right to left. Countering the incoming pulse ("Catching the rock") with a second pulse from the left cable does not generate propulsion. Any propulsion generated will be from the pulses sent in any other directions, out from the system, like a rocket thrusting vapors into space. Sending pulses (or shifting matter) inside the system does not generate propulsion. 

To repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. And before you post next modification or new idea, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. 

*) A more detailed wold have to be supplied by other members; I would need to read up on Maxwell and understand the type of energy (radiated, electric, magnetic or conducted) and maybe range of frequencies shape, duration and amplitude of waveform. Hopefully the simplified cases above are good enough.

2 minutes ago, MPMin said:

The electronics to drive what I’m describing are incomprehensible to me. I can’t imagine being able to pulse a current for such a short period of time so as to allow a pulse (or wave if you will) of magnetic field, having said that though, consider that the cycle of pulsing a magnetic field would be so extremely short that potentially billions if not trillions of cycles could occur per second. 

Perhaps a drawing would help better describe what I’m trying to say? 

Maybe a drawing will show where the error is.

Photons leaving=propulsion, as in my rocket example. 
Photons sent between components inside system=no propulsion, as in my example with a rocket in a bubble. 

Or in other words: Any kind of device trying to capture some kind of stuff that wants to leave the thing you want to propel, will act as a break.

9 hours ago, MPMin said:

Doesn’t the combustion of a normal rocket occur internally? Please explain why this ‘internal to the system’ prevents momentum?

44 minutes ago, MPMin said:

To be clear, in the example of a rocket, there first must be internal forces to generate the external forces that propel the rocket?

in other swords the external forces can not occur without the internal forces happening first? 

Is this correct?

Not clear what you mean but I'll try:
A rocket is at rest in our frame of reference in space:

The rocket starts the engine. It uses internal combustion of fuel. The combustion causes expansion of   hot gases. The expansion causes pressure in the engine resulting in forces that accelerate the gases in the only way possible; out to the left. The gases have momentum P. The force accelerating the gases causes a counterforce on the rocket. The rocket gains momentum P to the right. Center of mass of the complete system gases+rocket is not moved. Total momentum is conserved P-P=0. 

The rocket shuts down the engine and moves at constant speed in our frame of reference. Gasses continue to the left. The center of mass has not moved. Total momentum is conserved P-P=0 

Now we try to do an invention, let's put the rocket in a bubble and use a collector to gather the exhaust gases and use a machine to generate fuel from the vapour. Will the invention work? The combustion C is still internal in the rocket, exactly as above? The forces from the vapour will be the same, acting on the rocket? But as I have said a few times, conservation of momentum can't be beaten. The double will not move its center of mass. Now no mass can leave the system. The collector will have to stop the vapours. The forces required balances the momentum P of the gases. At best there will be some wobble while masses are moved around.  There will be a lot of internal stress on the components, none of those forces will have any impact on the center of mass of the complete system, the bubble, the rocket, the gasses in motion etc.

Note that if we instead of vapour use photons it does not matter. You can't beat conservation of momentum. 

51 minutes ago, MPMin said:

For the sake of argument, if all that’s happening by pulsing the magnetic fields is canceling out the magnetic field in the direction of the other wire leaving a net magnetic field force going the other way will it move?

Read my answer above, it already explains internal / external. It looks like yo missed it.

Again: Internal forces does not generate propulsion. It doesn't matter how many cables or magnets or rocks or trampolines or batteries or particles or "pulses" you have, their interaction, internally in the system, cannot make the complete system move its center of mass or make the complete system accelerate. Period. You can't beat the general rule of conservation of momentum. But you can unintentionally fool yourself, or other forum members, by not defining the system correctly. As I said above.

If you analyse the internals of a rocket (or other) there are many billions of forces or interactions. There are macroscopic parts pushing against each other (bolts, screws or other) and particles (electrons, protons, atoms ...) etc. The particles may have magnetic fields and momentum and there are forces governing their interaction. None of those internal forces, or any kind of sum or composition of such forces will have any impact on the momentum of the complete system. It doesn't matter if it is the force between an electron and the nucleus, the magnetic fields in a battery or between cables or if is molecules in a muscle moving an arm that throws a rock. Internal forces does not generate propulsion. Investors will not be interested.

Hint: Try analysing your idea without using forces (if F=ma is tricky to apply). You seem to get sidestepped by the fact that a force at some time t=0 may be unbalanced and then countered by some force at some time t>0. Unbalanced forces doesn't automatically generate to propulsion. Use momentum instead. Where and how is momentum generated?

14 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

That would be a start, if you insist I am wrong without trying to understand the concept you will be, like the flat Earthers were, stuck wasting time because "it was clearly nonsense that the world could be round".

At his time it is the other way around. Science has gathered evidence that the world is round and you keep stating the earth is flat. Reality does not seem to agree with the number of time dimensions you propose. 

12 minutes ago, MPMin said:

I don’t see it that way. A single wire carrying a current will emit the magnetic field in all directions from the wire thus cancelling out any movement. If there is another wire in parallel carrying a current there will be a force between the wires. In my mind, pulsing the current from one the wires prevents the connection of the magnetic field to the wire it came from thus leaving the other wire to push agains the magnetic pulse. 

First, to repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. And before you post next modification or new idea, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. I have already explained about wires and radiation, your way of seeing does not match how reality behaves. Your "what about this variant of..." is already beaten by the more general principle. You would have to work on the fundamental level of physics, not some detail in magnetics/mechanics/rocks/trampolines

Trying another angle. Conservation of momentum is extremely general. It's not one type of conservation of momentum for a few cases of macroscopic mechanics, another conservation of momentum for electricity/photons/particles etc. It is the same principle. Try this thought experiment*: Let's say you have come up with one case in everyday life where conservation of momentum is broken. That means objects can gain momentum without force applied. That would mean, since a very general principle is broken, that such things could happen all the time? Celestial bodies leaving the orbits. Subatomic particles leaving their atoms. Forum members and moderators spontaneously accelerating in every direction. Cars impossible to stop since they gain more momentum than acceleration provided. Such a universe seems rather chaotic and not what is observed and therefore not a very likely scenario. If conservation of momentum is wrong** it is wrong for everything, it would not be isolated to a few cables in your system. 

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

It now seem that the conservation of momentum law no longer apply?

Note: always be very careful when defining the "system". Example: I could say to an inventor: "No your idea of space propulsion is wrong, conservation of momentum is not possible to beat, your rocket engine is a failure". Inventor "But there are fumes coming out from the back of the rocket, look!" I say: "you can't beat the conservation of momentum. The rocket's centre of mass is not accelerating."
Inventor "AHA! I see! you define the rocket as the shell, fuel and exhausts! The complete system! I don't include the fumes from the engine, they leave the system." Me: "Good point! I got it wrong!" That is a different thing, the engine will work in space and your rocket will accelerate."

The above case is intended to be kind of childish but intended to illustrate that this is one aspect of each and every kind of reactionless propulsion I have come across. The inventor and/or the one analysing is missing some aspect or failing to realise where boundaries are. 

Before posting more variants of attempts please read and analyse the responses so far. I think you might be close to that aha-moment where the conservation of momentum makes sense in the general case? Maybe you need to ask some questions about the conservation of momentum from a more general point of view, instead of wasting time on one case after another where the answer is known to be you can beat the law of conservation of momentum? 

*) Disclaimer: Quick post, not much time to think too deeply about the correctness of this part.

**) Im not discussing universe as a whole here, I think universe was mentioned in an earlier post. For instance the accelerating increasing distances between remote galaxies is not "propulsion". On such scales "proper velocity" etc complicates the discussion too much for this thread. 

20 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

anybody getting that AHA moment yet??? Please someone!

Aha! That’s how you got it all wrong!

Now you can use the forum and ask questions about how light and the various models behave and when they apply instead of posting more invalid models based on misinterpretstions of videos.

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

the extra time dimensions have always been here though and explain a lot that science can't but I'm not elaborating until everyone gets the basic concept first. There is no point until people do. 

Ok, you want to overthrow every piece of physics ever discovered by mankind without even bothering to elaborate? That makes it kind of hard to contribute with analysis of the ideas you present. I don't think Einstein and the others you mention presented only part of an idea and hoped to gain support? Didn't they present enough to allow other scientists so see that they were right (or to allow other scientists to spot issues or ask for improvements / corrections). So far you have presented nothing that shows that your "concept" is an improvement over current models or theories, everything presented points at the opposite; the basic concept you try to describe is incorrect.

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The diagrams are very clear on the website,

Then you should be able to present some of them here if that is required to follow your idea?

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The basis of any scientific discussion is to read the subject matter first....

Yes. If you did you would see where your ideas have issues and where current models are applicable. 

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The maths I have shown are primary school,

That is probably one of the main communication issues we have here! You are using words from mainstream science, words such as "photon", "wave" etc. Those words are backed up by some really detailed mathematical definitions, some of which may be above primary school level. When using the words without those mathematical models the words loose their scientific meaning. When you say "photon" and then reject the models and math for the mainstream science concept of a photon you have nothing left. I think you need to present a very detailed alternative model for light and probably invent new words that does not already have a very precise meaning. Or stick to, and try to improve upon, the current model that current experiments done with current equipment have confirmed to be valid. 

39 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Is the problem having stored energy on the platform? What If the system was powered by solar panels?

First, to repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum.

And before you post next modification or new idea, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum.

That said, If the system gets external power you have another situation so to answer the solar panel question I think of two cases:

A: If the system driven by the (small) pressure from the solar wind then you have an external force acting on the system. Result is propulsion (=solar sail, not reactionless drive).

B: If you use the sun only to power parts of the system we can use a thought experiment. Neglect particle pressure or locate the system where the particle pressure is equal from all sides* so no external force act on the system. Gravity is neglected. Solar panels gives the system power**. If you use the power to send out particles or radiation in some way you have a "rocket", not a reactionless drive. If you use the energy internally*** there will be no force acting on the system, result is zero acceleration.

*) I don't remember, is that at the terminal chock? 

**) This is a thought experiment, solar panels likely not very useful at this location

***) Neglecting infrared radiation from machinery, leaking radio signals or other things that could propel the system. Or making sure that any such radiation is symmetrical.