Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I wasn't referring to the energy of the field, but rather generalizing from the term 'mass' to 'energy density'. Not meant to be a play on words but a more accurate statement of the fundamental nature of mass. I'm sure a non native English speaker will have found my post a bit obtuse. Anyhow, the understanding I have is that mass is an emergent property that arrises from the energy within. A particle or planetary body is traditionally referred to as having 'mass' and I'm looking at it as simply a concentration of high energy density.
If I were to anthropomorphize energy, it would be to imbue it with a desire to spread it's wings, to travel, to get out there. Hence gravity is a means for clusters of high energy density to transfer energy via the gravitational field to other clusters of high energy density. Could there be a thermodynamic perspective here? the entropy of energy.
If I were to anthropomorphize energy, it would be to imbue it with a desire to spread it's wings, to travel, to get out there. Hence gravity is a means for clusters of high energy density to transfer energy via the gravitational field to other clusters of high energy density. Could there be a thermodynamic perspective here? the entropy of energy.
I wandered off in my own direction, but did realise that you were talking about transfer of energy between "particles" that you likened to "energy-densities".
There is a thermodynamic perspective which describes gravity as a force which results from the universe's tendency to increase its entropy.
Entropic (emergent) gravity is based on string theory and is said to abide by the second law of thermodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Live View Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) From Telescope
Green Comet 2023 Live Stream - C/2022 E3 ZTF Telescope View
Green Comet 2023 Live Stream - C/2022 E3 ZTF Telescope View
Unfortunately, the brightness of the Green Comet is just at the threshold of what can be seen by the naked eye.
I read that a green appearance for comets is not uncommon and has to do with the breakdown of the dicarbon molecule. Digital cameras pick up the green more readily than the human eye because of their greater sensitivity to colour.
I read that a green appearance for comets is not uncommon and has to do with the breakdown of the dicarbon molecule. Digital cameras pick up the green more readily than the human eye because of their greater sensitivity to colour.
Could someone explain how this works ...
"Craft using an inertial mass reduction device"
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
"Craft using an inertial mass reduction device"
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
It doesn't "work" since it's but an untested hypothesis.
Quote: "If we can engineer the structure of the local quantum vacuum state ... This realization would greatly advance the fields of aerospace propulsion..."
That's a BIG IF!
Quote: "If we can engineer the structure of the local quantum vacuum state ... This realization would greatly advance the fields of aerospace propulsion..."
That's a BIG IF!
Keen interest in electrogravitics (eGrav) emerged in the 1950s and several programs were funded to develop anti-gravity propulsion (AGP), lasting into the mid 1970s.
Although general relativity appears to prohibit AGP, the recent (2018) US Navy patent implies that it is possible to reduce the inertial mass and hence the gravitational mass of an object in motion by causing an abrubt pertrubation of local space-time.
Current models of quantum gravity do describe such local fluctations of space-time geometry at the quantum level.
It may be that the patent holder is not really serious regarding the design of the craft. More likely they are trying to claim a monopoly on any future practical applications of the developing theory of quantum gravity. The craft may be bollocks, but quantum gravity is a serious field of research.
Thre's a full discussion on the patent in this thread: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/gravitational-waveguides.343745/
In the case of the latter patent, it is claimed that the Chinese are already developing similar capabilities.
The above information, plus a full analysis, is available here:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...d-by-warning-of-similar-chinese-tech-advances
It reminded me of the "over unity" type things, as it appears to be saying " inertial mass reduction" could be done in some way other than ... well, removing mass. I laughed.
It does kind of bother me that it's in a patent, as the USPTO specifically says perpetual motion machines are not patentable, but there's a lot of equivalent things that seem to get through.
In the UK you can not patent a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method.
You can patent your invention provided it is:
- new - it must not have been made publicly available anywhere in the world, for example it must not be described in a publication
- inventive - for example, it cannot be an obvious change to something that already exists
- either something that can be made and used, a technical process, or a method of doing something
The USA has similar if not identical rules, but maybe the UK patent examiners are better at adhering to the rules, or recognizing when a patent violates such rules. In the 1990s I attended a patent seminar my employer put on for engineers. One story was an engineer at the company bet his boss that he could get a patent for the addition of one resistor to a circuit. The boss disagreed with the claim but signed off on submitting the claim, and the employee received the patent.
For what it's worth the company that would have had the patent is Schlumberger, and the patent would have been issued before the seminar I attended, circa 1997. It's a huge international company with a lot of patents so that patent may be hard to find. I didn't see the patent or a patent number, but I was left with the strong impression that there was no "innovative new function" from the addition of this resistor, though of course it would interesting to see what was written in the patent to justify it. Yes, it COULD HAVE added something new and innovative, I just don't believe it did.
If you read various patent law webpages including uspto.gov it seems like there's a high standard for patents to be issued, but I've read a lot of patents (including a few audio patents mentioned on this site) and there are some that clearly don't do anything and/or are written in complete gobbledygook, or are even of methods known to the industry for many years.
My apologies for interfering with the gravity of this thread.
If you read various patent law webpages including uspto.gov it seems like there's a high standard for patents to be issued, but I've read a lot of patents (including a few audio patents mentioned on this site) and there are some that clearly don't do anything and/or are written in complete gobbledygook, or are even of methods known to the industry for many years.
My apologies for interfering with the gravity of this thread.
I don't suppose Albert Einstein granted patents to Junk Science.
I have been having a tough time with General Relativity, which I thought might not be too hard, It's horrible!
I am doing OK refreshing my knowledge of Classical Mechanics. Lagrangian Mechanics (Which is essentially playing with the sum of potential and kinetic Energy) all makes sense. Inverse Square Law severly constrains solutions. This image of Gaussian Curvature one I knocked up myself.
Feynman's book on Gravity assumes an understanding of Quantum Field Theory, which is an ask for me.
Anywhoo, it's all about curvature. Unfortunately, AFAIK, the GR equation includes Ricci Curvature, The Ricci scalar, Riemann and Mobius transformations and Conformal Filed Theory. Plus the Cosmological Constant.
Conformal Fields are things of great loveliness, preserving right angles and mapping Spheres on Straight lines usually. The crop up all over the place:
Here's the most compact primer I have found so far. Good Old John Baez.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
This could take a while. Like 5 years. 🙄
I have been having a tough time with General Relativity, which I thought might not be too hard, It's horrible!
I am doing OK refreshing my knowledge of Classical Mechanics. Lagrangian Mechanics (Which is essentially playing with the sum of potential and kinetic Energy) all makes sense. Inverse Square Law severly constrains solutions. This image of Gaussian Curvature one I knocked up myself.
Feynman's book on Gravity assumes an understanding of Quantum Field Theory, which is an ask for me.
Anywhoo, it's all about curvature. Unfortunately, AFAIK, the GR equation includes Ricci Curvature, The Ricci scalar, Riemann and Mobius transformations and Conformal Filed Theory. Plus the Cosmological Constant.
Conformal Fields are things of great loveliness, preserving right angles and mapping Spheres on Straight lines usually. The crop up all over the place:
Here's the most compact primer I have found so far. Good Old John Baez.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
This could take a while. Like 5 years. 🙄
Curvature?
A geometrical property: Flatness of an object.
At school we were taught Euclidean Geometry. That's the geometry of a Flat Space in which the three angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees.
However, the geometry of a Curved Space, such as a sphere, is non-Euclidean. If a triangle is constructed, then the angles do not necessarily add up to 180 degrees.
In his theory of General Relativity, Einstein introduced the idea of Curved Spacetime in which, if a triangle is constructed out of three rays of light, the angles do not necessarily add up to 180 degrees because of the bending of light by gravity.