[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heardof this?")
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:43:34 -0700
I need a drawing I may have the stuff to build one already? Not even
sure we need any money.
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was
> "Anyone heardof this?")
> From: rclague@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, August 04, 2014 9:14 am
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> One man proposes to build an experimental apparatus. Another man invokes
> authority.
>
>
>
> One of these is science. The other is not.
>
>
>
> Clive, I'm in for $10.
>
>
>
> -R
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: David Gregory <david.c.gregory@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sender: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 07:52:30
>
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reply-To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone
>
> heardof this?")
>
>
>
> You're going to spend 100k to test a machine that appears to violate
>
> Newton's third law?
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2014, at 11:14 PM, Michael Clive <clive@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> my idea is just,well, build enough of these things, test em, and let the
>
> data rule all. The math will come after. The capital outlay is in the 100k
>
> range, which is feasible for a crowdfund/private partnership.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:04 PM, <joesmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the late 1890's Marconi invented the wireless,working off the efforts
>
> > of such as
>
> > Henry,Maxwell and Hertz.
>
> > The world was changed overnight,forever after.
>
> > Logically we should have to ask not ''when'' but ''how soon'' and
>
> > ''who''.
>
> > Nobody can deny the technology exist,,but how do we tie it together as the
>
> > 20 year old Italian did?.
>
> > Don't you think that it is about time to come un-STUCK?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:47:11 -0700, "Monroe L. King Jr." <
>
> > monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > There is the theory Hawking Radiation (which was mostly proven wrong)
>
> >
>
> >> But there is the radiation emitted from black holes. It takes a hell of
>
> >> a gravity well to produce it. But as the particles reach the horizon
>
> >> it's like there it produces a particle and an anti particle and one
>
> >> falls over the horizon and the other escapes if they do no annihilate
>
> >> each other first. For me that explains why we have more matter than anti
>
> >> mater in our universe. Black holes sweeping up the floor all the time
>
> >> for eons.
>
> >> I am sure you guy's could care less what I think. But it's going to
>
> >> take a hell of a lot of energy to make the next breakthrough (like a
>
> >> tiny black hole) or being able to actually see the event horizon and
>
> >> measure something from a far off black hole (Like the massive one at the
>
> >> center of our galaxy) But Hawking was trying to explain why or where the
>
> >> matter goes? Why not a "Big Bang" on the other side? Why not if the
>
> >> gravity is so
>
> >> great the singularity smashes down so far to the Higgs or beyond and
>
> >> that energy is expelled into another universe?
>
> >>
>
> >> One thing is for sure they don't expel anything but some minor
>
> >> radiation in our universe. Where does all that matter go?
>
> >>
>
> >> Black holes do die! They eventually evaporate.
>
> >> Anyway bla bla bla. With no proof.
>
> >> Mathematics is like building skyscrapers with geometric shapes that
>
> >> seem to resemble something we call building blocks. Lots of ways to
>
> >> build something but eventually you reach the top. We have whole cities
>
> >> of blocks that over time we have made fit together.
>
> >> We are at the pinnacle of what we can do with our building blocks made
>
> >> of stone. So what we have to do now is discover steel and concrete.
>
> >> The new cities we build will look nothing like the ones we have now.
>
> >> Maybe a bit here some architecture there you can recognize. But beyond
>
> >> that it just wont be the same anymore.
>
> >> That's how far we have come. Pretty damn far! But we are so so so very
>
> >> far from understanding it all it's not even funny.
>
> >> Monroe > -------- Original Message --------
>
> >> > Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was
>
> >> > "Anyone heard of this?")
>
> >> > From: Ian Woollard<ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> >> > Date: Sun, August 03, 2014 3:09 pm
>
> >> > To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> > > > If you have photons leaving in significant numbers you will have at
>
> >> least
>
> >> > some thrust; but that's a conventional photon rocket. Photon rockets
>
> >> give
>
> >> > very small thrust and are highly inefficient; it turns out that almost
>
> >> all
>
> >> > the energy leaves with the photons and hardly any ends up accelerating
>
> >> the
>
> >> > vehicle. (It's due to the extreme mismatch between the exhaust speed and
>
> >> > vehicle speed, you always want the two to be about the same-ish
>
> >> relative to
>
> >> > the launch frame of reference aka inertial reference frame.)
>
> >> > > Note that these thrusters have no photons leaving other than thermal
>
> >> ones
>
> >> > due to waste heat; they consist of sealed cavities filled with
>
> >> microwaves. > They claim that by quantum/relativistic/magic/somehow they
>
> >> will start
>
> >> > moving all by themselves. > > I'll only really believe it if it floats
>
> >> up into the sky and yanks the
>
> >> > power cord out of the wall. > > > On 3 August 2014 09:23, Steen Eiler
>
> >> Jørgensen<steen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Den 03-08-2014 02:09, Ian Woollard skrev:
>
> >> > >
>
> >> > > > There's essentially no chance that a thruster can work where you
>
> >> turn
>
> >> > > > it on, feeding only electricity through it, and with nothing leaving
>
> >> > > > it; where you switch it off, and you're now moving faster. This is
>
> >> > > > what the emdrive is claimed to do. > >
>
> >> > > Please define "nothing". Photons (e.g.) have no mass, but nonzero
>
> >> momentum. > >
>
> >> > > /steen
>
> >> > >
>
> >> > >
>
> >> > >
>
> >> > > > -- > -Ian Woollard
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
Other related posts: