maciejmar Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 Below picture it is only small step on my blog very important explanation how works EMdrive (Nasa published raport few weeks ago I made test in home 2 years ago) Quote
sanctus Posted September 4, 2014 Report Posted September 4, 2014 Please do not just post a graphic with 1 line of (cryptic) explanation and a link to your blog. Either elaborate or your post will be removed. Quote
HydrogenBond Posted September 4, 2014 Report Posted September 4, 2014 If you look at GR, the mass of the earth creates a space-time well with the position of center of the earth, the surface and orbital positions above the earth, all in different places in the space-time well. Since these are all difference references. the data received by the Hubble telescope, higher in the well, is occurring in a different space-time reference than the surface. These two will not see the same data without an adjustment to compensate for different well positions. Alternately, different data references, for the Hubble telescope reference, and the a surface telescope reference, would be a way to prove GR. If this data does not need an adjustment, then GR has been disproven. I believe in GR, so there would need to be an adjustment. The question becomes, what does the more expanded space-time reference of Hubble do to the data, relative to the same data reaching telescopes on the earth surface reference where space-time is more contracted? Since the space-time well is more expanded in orbit, the Hubble data should be more red shifted. The net effect, since Hubble can look further than the surface telescopes, unadjusted Hubble data beyond what the surface can see, will appear more red shifted that what we would see from the surface, if we do not make the needed adjustments outlined by Einstein. Are these adjustments being made for reference? Or is the acceleration expansion, way out there where only Hubble can see, a reference artifact? Quote
maciejmar Posted September 5, 2014 Author Report Posted September 5, 2014 Below I proving that mass m is able make rotation and lost weight !!!http://youtu.be/UvcmKNZ8u8I gravitation mass it is not the same what inertia masseach body has got own critical omega speed proportional to massafter we cross this speed body will start fly !!!http://youtu.be/ws13iyg8XEsWe can turn on antygravitation ( start rotation ) then move up bodyafter move up we can get back energy from rotation ( stop )we can use real body Q to produce energy !!! Quote
Pmb Posted November 15, 2014 Report Posted November 15, 2014 While gravitational mass is not defined in the same way as inertial mass they have the same numerical value so its not too far of a stretch to say that they are the same thing in practice. Most physicists use them as such. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.