Wave drive flying saucer

[MasterOgon]

They were published in the ether . . . . by the ether bunny!!

Do you mean that? There was already an answer to this. No. I have published an article in a peer-reviewed but not a reputable journal. For the sake of interest,
send it to Journal of Aircraft and they was told that this is interesting, but should have a more serious approach with detailed technical or mathematical descriptions. I do not have the opportunity for high-quality experiments to measure and present everything in this form

 

[iconoclast]

Do you mean that? There was already an answer to this. No. I have published an article in a peer-reviewed but not a reputable journal. For the sake of interest,
send it to Journal of Aircraft and they was told that this is interesting, but should have a more serious approach with detailed technical or mathematical descriptions. I do not have the opportunity for high-quality experiments to measure and present everything in this form

You published this in a peer reviewed journal? Not likely, or reviewed by . . . . the ether bunny?. And you can't take a more serious detailed technical approach because your material is not correct, or technically rigorous.

 

[MasterOgon]

Here is this article (rus) https://sci-article.ru/stat.php?i=1601957819 Naturally, there are no ethereal hypotheses, only aero and hydrodynamics. Review below it. Information about the reviewer if you click on it
Academic degree, academic title: candidate of physics and mathematics. sciences, associate professor. Or here https://www.famous-scientists.ru/4512/
For the rigor of the description, laboratory conditions are required. The difficulties of carrying out these experiments are described in the article

 

[MasterOgon]

I did EN translation of this article with added video links. HTML or PDF here https://ojs.ukrlogos.in.ua/index.php/2663-4139/article/view/14185

 

[MasterOgon]

Already did this video

Acoustic jet engine for a flying saucer. An experimental study in aerodynamics that shows a phenomenon that does not fit into the theory.

View: https://youtu.be/Et0EpEulf8c?feature=shared

 

[billslugg]

The belief in the "aether" came from the belief that some substance must occupy space such that it can produce waves of light.
This was before we became aware of just how powerful and long range the electric field is. Each charged particle in the universe has an electric field that extends to the edge of the universe in all directions. This force is directed inward for negatively charged particles and outward for positively charged ones. In each case the field is radial. When the charged particle moves sideways thus generating a "kink" in the field, that kink radiates outward at the speed of light.
No "aether" needed. Or conversely, the electric field is the aether.

 

[MasterOgon]

The belief in the "aether" came from the belief that some substance must occupy space such that it can produce waves of light.
This was before we became aware of just how powerful and long range the electric field is. Each charged particle in the universe has an electric field that extends to the edge of the universe in all directions. This force is directed inward for negatively charged particles and outward for positively charged ones. In each case the field is radial. When the charged particle moves sideways thus generating a "kink" in the field, that kink radiates outward at the speed of light.
No "aether" needed. Or conversely, the electric field is the aether.

I would prefer to call it ether because this is the original beautiful name for something that at a certain stage was not understood correctly, and the word field may have a different meaning. Of course, it was naive to assume that the Earth is blown by an ethereal wind. But in space the laws of hydrodynamics are practically repeated, and it is not for nothing that the sink funnel is a successful analogue model of a black hole. With some assumptions, it can be assumed that matter is a vortex of space and stars are something like cavitation bubbles, which also have the structure of a spherical vortex. They form and collapse in zones of increased tension in the galaxy's gravitational waves, just as smaller vortices form in larger waves in water. Also in water there is an analogue of wave particles - this is a vortex ring that has the properties of a material body and can only have impulse while moving but does not exist at rest. And also quantum fluctuations can be considered an analogue of the thermal motion of molecules. Perhaps these fluctuations can enter into resonance and thus, reaching a critical stretch, space collapses and forms matter

 

[Classical Motion]

Do you know what a oscillating sprinkler head is? A stream of water is clapped with a spring loaded clapper. This spreads the water and turns the nozzle.

Remove clapper. Measure water stream velocity. Now turn the water stream sideways at that velocity.

Turning the stream sideways limits the range of the water stream. We square the water with velocity.

With different sideways velocities, one can set the range of the water.

And the same with electric fields. Electric fields are limited by the spin of the source.

Electric fields are local. And have adjustable ranges. The density of those fields are adjustable too.

Only when a E field is separated and emitted.......can an electric field go anywhere.

An electric field would have to have infinite power to have an infinite range. Especially with it's divergent property. An electric field would have to fill infinity to get to infinity.

 

[MasterOgon]

An electric field would have to have infinite power to have an infinite range. Especially with it's divergent property. An electric field would have to fill infinity to get to infinity.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult for me to understand what an electric field is. I can't visualize this. I can imagine the magnetic field as an onion in structure similar to a vortex ring. Using the direction of flow, the attraction and repulsion of magnets can be explained. But I can't find an analogy for the electric field.

 

[billslugg]

Allow me to toss a fly into the ointment. The only field is the electric field. The magnetic field is simply a mathematical construct to account for relativity when a charge is set into motion. There can never be a magnetic field without a moving charge. This is what perplexed Einstein about Maxwell's equations.

If a parade of electrons is walking down the street they will not detect a magnetic field as they are not moving relative to each other.

A group of electrons sitting on a park bench along side the highway will detect a magnetic field as the electrons pass. This is due to the relative velocity between the two groups. Each sees the other group as being foreshortened thus denser, thus a repulsive force is generated. This repulsive force is simply the electric force augmented by Lorentz contraction. There is no "magnetic field".

 

[MasterOgon]

Well, this simplifies everything. But what exactly is visualized using magnetized chips when compaction and rarefaction alternate?

 

[billslugg]

You are seeing tiny magnets aligning themselves with a time varying electric field. When you look at a dipole antenna, face on, from a distance and the electrons bunch up at one end of the antenna and then rust to the other end, you are seeing a bunch of electrons slightly off to the right, and then slightly off to the left. The field vector appears coming from one direction and then another. It reverses periodically as do the orientations of the tiny particles receiving it.

 

[MasterOgon]

Why are there gaps like onions between the tiny magnets?

 

[billslugg]

In the gaps between oscillations the field is zero and the tiny magnets are randomly oriented.

 

[MasterOgon]

Thanks!

 

[Classical Motion]

We have been sequentially steering a moving parade of electrons for decades with a M field. Analog tv sets. The theory that only the E fields exist is just another modern math theory. Has no bearing or meaning with physical motion. Math never has. Math is not physical. Math can only compare, not explain. Math can not move anything. Math has no limits because it's not physical. When you let a non physical mechanism explain physical things, you get expanding space, super light speeds, variable time and variable length. Reason and logic become perverted and goes to .......


Accelerating a charge does not manufacture a M field. Accelerating charge only aligns the M fields that are already there. The acceleration of charge....current....gives all the M fields of all the charge the same alignment......and NOW you can measure a COLLECTIVE M field. The M field is always with the charge. Just not aligned. It was not manufactured with acceleration. It was aligned.

Every charge has a fundamental M field with it. There can be no charge rotation without a M field to spin it.

Which came first the E or the M? They always come together. You will never find one without the other. They can be non aligned with each other but never separated. If the E and the M are aligned in parallel, the result is inertia. If you align them anti-parallel you get anti-inertia.

Dipole emission does not come from accelerating charge. It comes from the instant deceleration and dissociation of a collective field alignment. The instant stoppage and breakup of a collective aligned field. That's why emission is a chunk and not a stream. Like bales of hay.

And every detected emission has a E component and a M component.

The structure and motion of a E field is hard to explain. My understanding of it is based on density and rotation.

And would take quite a while to explain.

The so called gaps are integer gaps. Quantum gaps. Only not quantum energy levels these gaps are integer levels and change depending on the size of the integer. They are structure quantums not energy quantums.

 

[billslugg]

The "magnetic" field in the deflection coils of a cathode ray tube are simply pushes and pulls by moving charges acting through the electric field. We use the construct of the magnetic field to greatly simplify the analysis. Without the concept of, and equations of magnetic fields, we would have to drag out our old General Relativity textbooks and slog through Lorentz Contraction, etc etc. This is much easier.

 

[MasterOgon]

This is similar to my understanding. Turbulence has these two components as rotation and density changes. The vortices are constantly collapsing and this creates vibration. And there is also a connection between a wave and a vortex, but elastic waves do not create a vortex.

I tried to draw these analogies in my other topic about the analogue model of the warp engine.

Space-time curvature and warp drive - search for technical solutions using analog modeling

Trying to conquer outer space without using rockets, we faced two extremes. One of them is the numerous impossible and non-working engines created in practice on non-existent principles, and the other is very scientific principles that work according to the laws of physics, but, nevertheless, do...

forums.space.com

This is what is briefly described in my recent answer here above. I see this all as an endlessly fractal movement of matter, field, ether or whatever, which takes different forms but has similar manifestations at different levels