rj40 wrote:Thanks. Building something that works as advertised (repeatedly) would be pretty convincing, but I was thinking about tests along the line of what was done with relativity. You know, explaining the orbit of the planet Mercury better than any other theory or the precise and accurate amount that light is bent as it goes past the sun. All sorts of things can go wrong, but as scientists begin to repeat tests (with occasional screw ups) a picture begins to emerge. And not just one test, but many different tests. I thought 3 to 5 might be a good start to help me understand and to help organize my thoughts. And not the two tests mentioned above, but tests specific to this theory.
If I understand your question, something similar to what Sonny planned at Eagleworks ought to have an M-E corollary. I'm not a physicist but I'll indulge in a little guesswork in hopes that this is actually true. Let me note however, that as I am NOT a physicist, I do not know that this necessarily follows from Jim's work. It appears to me it does, but things like this need to be run past real physicists.
To your example of light bending based on GR: it appears to me that light should bend when exposed to large positive and negative masses, toward the source when positive, and away when negative. Actually the light is going straight and the space itself is warping. This seems to me would appear as curved light from outside the warp, but you certainly need to run this by a physicist to know for sure. In any event, we do know that light
appears to bend when viewed from outside when passing through large gravity wells because as you've noted, we've made this observation.
So lets take the case of an M-E device producing an arbitrarily large mass fluctuation--enough to noticeably bend spacetime. M-E devices that have not had their mass fluctuations "rectified" into thrust by pushing/pulling at 2w, still ought to bend spacetime. What would that look like from outside?
Since to get a very large spacetime distortion one could measure, one supposes you'd need to operate at very high, ultra high or microwave frequencies, it would take some pretty fancy high speed photography to catch the beam moving back and forth--bending in when the mass is positive and out when the mass is negative. What I suppose one would perceive with the naked eye, is the beam appearing to thicken. That would be a noteworthy observation though I'd note to you, you'd have a really hard time convincing an engineer at NASA just to look for thickening. Rather, they'd probably want to look at high speed and see the beam in different places at different times corresponding to the projected spacetime distortion at any given instant, as that would be a very convincing phenomena--at least IMHO.
However, just saying, this is again, the same kind of "proof of science" Jim did with the rotator, and no one much cared because this does not clearly demonstrate a tool. In order to go a step further and build a tool like this, you have to generate so much negative mass (remember, the theory dictates that the negative going fluctuation is always larger than the positive going one) that a pair of such negative mass generators running 90* off phase (90*, not 180* since the fluctuation is at 2w) would generate a time averaged negative mass for the complete system--
that sums as negative at all instants. This is a negative mass/warp field generator one could build around a probe for example, and have a useful technology. You'll find this in Jim's book.
The shape of such a field to be useful, could be generated by a sphere, or the torus envisioned by Alcubierre, or if Sonny's maths are correct, a fatter torus that requires less negative mass.
And I would note to you, there is no unknown stuff here with the huge notable except that, no one has properly characterized the necessary dielectric for something like this yet, so there's no way to make an accurate prediction of what the necessary dielectric's electromechanical response would be at VHF, UHF or microwave frequencies. To make real quantitative predictions of what such a setup would produce, you'd first need to use an extremely high frequency scanning laser vibrometer to get the mechanical data on the dielectric.
If anyone wants to pony up for such a device please let me know.
Anyway, hope that answers your question.