[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]
noko
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network issues. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Really /sci/? You fuckers keep shitting on this tech, and now its confirmed to work, you say nothing? Bitter losers. Stick to your lego projects.

>With this design, a mission to Mars would result in a 70-day transit from Earth to the red planet, a 90-day stay at Mars, and then another 70-day return transit to Earth.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nasa-latest-tests-show-physics-230112770.html
>>
>>7635364

sup /pol/
>>
File: theexpanse.jpg (155 KB, 782x687) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
155 KB, 782x687
>>7635364
>>
File: 1418270154793.jpg (45 KB, 610x412) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
45 KB, 610x412
>>7635364
That's the news on the energy available for the Mars mission?!!?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU GET ME THERE NOW SPACE X!!!!!
>>
>>7635376
>That pic

It's been a long, long time since I actually chuckled at a "troll science" post. Good job.
>>
>>7635379
Think for a second. Why would the reaction produce any thrust in space? There's nothing to push off of. The exhaust would just fly into space unobstructed and instantly dissipate, because it's gas in a vacuum.
>>
>>7635379

because stuck in outer orbit for years until eventual decay

not even that outer of an orbit
>>
>>7635364
even if it works, it will be another 50 years before we get a usable engine.
>>
>>7635390

>>
NIIIIIICEE SPACE EMPIRE WHEN?
>>
>Though no official peer-reviewed lab paper has been published yet...
>>
>>7635409
Yea /thread right here. You can't go by mainstream news regarding anything scientific, especially with astrophysics. If we did that, we'd think we really found an ALIEN MEGASTRUCTURE FOR SURE.
>>
File: ufos confirmed.jpg (220 KB, 1210x680) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
220 KB, 1210x680
Can someone tell me how EMdrive works in laymans terms ? What kind of energy source does it use and what kind of propulsion does it generate and how ?
>>
>>7635386
I'm confused, are you trying to say that when a rocket flies it is because the exhaust bounces off the air and pushes back on the rocket? Because that's just stupid.
>>
>>7635612

>Can someone tell me how EMdrive works in laymans terms ?

Magic

It's literally magic you know because it goes against a fundemental law of the universe
>>
>>7635612
>Can someone tell me how EMdrive works in laymans terms ?
Sure: it doesn't work

>What kind of energy source does it use
Electricity

>and what kind of propulsion does it generate and how ?
it doesn't generate propulsion.
>>
>>7635627
Not only does it go against a fundamental law of the universe, but the rest of its technology needs that law to function.
>>
>>7635629
>>7635627
Well then tell me how people claim this works.
>>
>>7635379
It does, that's the joke. That's how spaceflight works and how we got to the moon.
>>
>>7635635

I'll say it this way instead

If it does work then we have a whole lot of rethinking to do
>>
>>7635639
thats usually the case in scientific breakthroughs, but i still no idea what its supposed to do...
>>
>>7635379

it would if your rocket is strong enough
>>
>>7635376
Looking at it like this you can see why everyone at the time considered Goddard to be a nutjob.
>>
>>7635635
Basically they inject microwave radiation into a closed cone structure. The microwaves bounce around inside and somehow there's thrust they don't know how to account for. There's multiple hypotheses for where the thrust comes from and they're all controversial.
>>
>>7635663
and how much is this supposed EM waves thrust ? Is it any more feasible than space travels using fuel ?
>>
>>7635671
The more controlled the conditions were under which the experiments took place, the smaller the error in measurement were,
the less thrust was measured.

Rest assured, there is nothing but wishfull thinking to drive this rocket.
>>
>>7635671
negligible to nothing
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion remains the only viable form of space propulsion
>>
>>7635663
it's obvious how it works. the photons are objects
>>
>>7635379
Van Allen belt radiation would kill coolface about the time he reached the moon
>>
>>7635729
i like the idea of a new compton experiment :p; this time with light.
>>
>>7635671
Theoretical values depend on who you ask, and in all hypotheses are highly dependent on the shape of the resonating cavity, its efficiency as a resonator ("Q value"), and the input power.

The published results with higher-quality data that aren't Chinese or by Shawyer (the guy who invented it and who is therefore biased on the matter) have been in the microNewton regime, at powers of tens of watts.

Somewhere in the general area of 1 milliNewton/kiloWatt seems to be a conservative estimate based on available data, and is also consistent with the claimed unpublished results. No published paper that isn't Chinese or directly affiliated with Shawyer has shown thrusts higher than 100 microNewtons. However, it is considered likely (well, likely by those who think it works at all) that more efficient resonating cavities and/or higher input powers would result in higher thrust efficiencies.

This is on the shitty end, energy efficiency-wise, of ion thrusters - the current high-fuel-efficient electrical thrusters used on satellites and deep-space missions.

However, it would have the benefit of never needing refueling - which would be extremely useful for satellites, which normally simply reach the end of their lives when they run out of fuel, needing to be deorbited and burned up in the atmosphere, or else become useless space junk unable to maintain a stable orbit.

It would also enable extremely long-range deep space missions, because you could just keep exerting thrust over very, very long periods without needing to bring a significant fuel mass.

If the thrust efficiency could be increased, then things would get very interesting indeed.
>>
>>763459
Getting to mars in 70 days requires that the drive have a Q of 0.4 N/KW. Of course this means that if the drive is moving faster than 2.5 km/s then it is putting out more power than it is consuming, making it an overunity device.
>>
>>7635364
Can someone explain to me how all these tests aren't retarded?

This thing has been in limbo for years with no definitive answers. The tests are done with sophisticated and expensive equipment by qualified researchers, all to explain extremely small amounts of thrust from small and weak forms of the device, followed by months and years of debate over if it's an experimental error or not.

I'm sorry. This thing is called a DRIVE. It's supposed to do one thing, produce THRUST. What fucking vehicles run on millinewtons of thrust, what fucking vehicles run on thrust that's very existence is debated? What the fuck? Juice this bitch up and shoot it across a garage, god damn.
>>
>>7635627
>>7635634

>law

Laws are theoretical models and not immutable rules. Newtonian physics was once believed to be immutable and perfect, until Einstein came along. Deal with it.
>>
>>7635773
aren't you forgetting atmospheric interaction? how much of a difference is there?
>>
>>7635773

first they stick a digital scale to the wall

then they put the thruster in front of the scale

next they fire up the engine and see if the weight measurement increases
>>
>>7635783
they don't put it on the ground ?
>>
>>7635698
Care to provide evidence for this assertion?

>The more controlled the conditions were under which the experiments took place, the smaller the error in measurement were, the less thrust was measured

Because, I mean, it's true. It's also incredibly misleading. The later replications took place at substantially lower power levels, with smaller cavities, and lower Q-values. The more precise experiments used lower power levels, or crappier cavities, because it enhanced the precision they could use for measurement. NASA's published tests took place at just 17 watts; the TUD paper (which actually tested in hard vacuum!) used a tiny cavity with a Q-factor of less than 50 (and only 20 in the vacuum tests, because the copper had oxidized a bit by then) because of the small size and the limits of their microwave source.
>>
>>7635773
>explain to me how all these tests aren't retarded
They weren't designed and conducted by you.
>>
>>7635773
>What fucking vehicles run on millinewtons of thrust

Anything with existing electric propulsion systems?

To pick an example from a tab I happen to have open, the Dawn asteroid flyby mission, for instance, ran on ion thrusters putting out just 92 mN.
>>
>>7635773

it's a good amount of thrust in a vacuum over a very long period of time
>>
Reminder: this is not just a reactionless drive, but a perpetual motion machine.

Since it's supposed to produce constant thrust for a constant input of energy in a vacuum, regardless of nearby objects, without throwing reaction mass, it violates conservation of energy in inertial frames of reference where it's moving faster than a certain speed.
>>
>>7635773
>What fucking vehicles run on millinewtons of thrust

Well, I don't know, let's see...

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

>"Ion thrusters have an input power spanning 1–7 kilowatts, exhaust velocity 20–50 kilometers per second, thrust 20–250 millinewtons and efficiency 60–80%."

>thrust 20-250 millinewtons

I direct you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Missions . Those fucking vehicles run on millinewtons of thrust. Sure, your acceleration is crap - but your fuel efficiency is incredible, so you can accelerate at that tiny value for a long, long time and reach high speeds with very little propellant.
>>
>>7635802
It's thrust that's always at the edge of what is measurable, that still appears when they modify it to eliminate the possibility of the mechanism that they originally built it to test, and that continues after they cut the power, falling off as the device cools rather than with the reduction of electromagnetic interaction that's supposed to be driving it.
>>
>>7635802
>>7635792
oh

Still, why not just build it bigger and use more power? That way we don't have round after round of inconclusive findings like >>7635779 where the room had air in it so it's fucked. All the shit they use for these tests is probably way more expensive than this crackpot can. Do they have to use an exact replica specified by the inventor to test his claims? Both those guys sound retarded anyway, they don't know why it works if it does.
>>
>>7635815
but we easily proved ion thrusters work, why cant we disprove the em drive?
>>
>>7635810
Agreed. I think the EmDrive results are suggestive of some real phenomenon, but there's simply no way it can be reactionless.

However, "doesn't need to bring its own propellant" is very different from "reactionless." By that definition, the Wright Flyer ran on reactionless drives. There are (disputed, of course) claims that it could be possible to use the entire Universe as reaction mass (Mach effects), or that the non-emptiness of the quantum mechanical "vacuum" could act as a medium that could be pushed on as reaction mass (White's pet theory).

Mind you, such ideas have their critics, because they're fringe science and are therefore 99% likely to be really stupid. (And 0.9% likely to be non-stupid or even genuinely plausible, but simply incorrect nonetheless.) But it does illustrate the point, which is that "generates thrust without needing fuel" necessarily implies "reactionless and therefore a massive violation of physics" only if the drive is considered as a closed system.
>>
>>7635810

Perhaps it is exposing some previously unknown property of space, which is actually something. Ever since the concept of ether was discarded the just as idiotic concept of space as an expanse of nothing has prevailed, but the maths clearly shows space is something.
>>
>>7635835
Because there was no good reason to expect ion drives not to work, and massive theoretical evidence that made it blatantly obvious that they would. If you went up to a physicist who had never, ever heard of ion propulsion, and drew such device on a napkin, they might point out reasons why it couldn't produce much thrust but they would certainly recognize that there was no reason it shouldn't work.

The EmDrive is in the exact opposite position. That means that you need vastly more rigorous experimental evidence in order to convince people that it should work, and that because the default assumption is that the EmDrive is total bunk, massively less funding is allocated to it and researchers are kind of afraid to touch it in case it turns out to be bunk and tarnishes their name forever. Nobody wants to be the boy who cried reactionless drive.

This is a large part of the reason why the independent EmDrive tests have been rather crap - the time and equipment needed to set up the ideal testing conditions, measure all this with high accuracy, and big enough to work with larger powers and cavities is expensive, as is constructing and setting up an ideal drive. (For instance, if you don't use vacuum-safe equipment, a lot of the high-power electronics you need to run a resonant RF cavity like this will simply break in vacuum. This is why Eagleworks tested in air.)

If there was a solid, well-accepted theory that explains why the EmDrive should obviously work, we would consider it proven experimentally by now. But we don't. (And we're right to do so! You don't want to keep such an open mind that your brain falls out.)

Also, the EmDrive thrust signal is just weak enough relative to input power to be really annoyingly hard to measure. Even low-power ion drives have 10x the thrust of the EmDrive for each watt of input. And pumping up the input power to reach higher thrust means that thermal and electromagnetic noise sources become way harder to control for.
>>
>>7635409
>>
>>7635838
Doesn't change the fact you could use it to generate power if it works the way it's claimed to.(force per unit power constant with speed)
>>
>>7635671
To actually answer your question like a normal person, about 1 microwatt, it's like a "fly landing on the earth"-NASA worth of thrust, but can be scaled to spaceship size and create enough to get to Mars in 7 weeks
>>
>>7635886
>Doesn't change the fact you could use it to generate power if it works the way it's claimed to.(force per unit power constant with speed)

Explain. I'm not sure exactly how much power this thing takes, but the thrust it produces won't do more work than the electricity you put into it...
>>
>>7635802
>good amount of thrust.
No it isn't.
>>
>>7635889
Exactly, it also costs like almost a billion dollars to even get something like that to reasonable size
>>
>>7635802
No it fucking isn't unless it's 20x as big, which is the plan
>>
>>7635857
>boy who cried reactionless drive
Kek
>>
>>7635889
Lel nope.

If Q is thrust per watt. Then thrust F is

F=Q*P_in

Recall that power is:
P_out=F*V
Where V is speed

So power out is:
P_out= P_in*Q*V

For V> 1/Q, P_out > P_in
>>
ok so here's my conclusion:
the side the microwaves are thrust @ is smaller, so the larger end must be needed for the amount of microwaves. how much velocity is the microwave losing when it rebounds?
>>
>>7635899
How do these equations change in terms of a drive that doesn't violate conservation of momentum like, say, an ion drive?
>>
>>7635886
Actually, even Shawyer doesn't claim that. (He says it gets less efficient as the square of velocity, to balance out the increase in kinetic energy with the square of velocity. The fact that this would break Lorentz invariance seems to be lost on him.)

Also, I don't think a Mach-effect drive would deliver constant thrust either - if you're pushing off the rest of the universe, then the apparent velocity of you relative to the rest of the universe should matter.

And presumably White has some reason that a "quantum vacuum virtual plasma thruster" wouldn't break conservation of energy either, because he's at least a competent enough physicist to notice that gaping hole.

I think people are just assuming that the EmDrive's thrust efficiency would vary little enough over the maneuvers in question that it could be approximated as constant. This may or may not be a justifiable assumption.
>>
>>7635929
As the vehicle gains kinetic energy, it also loses energy from whatever source you're using to power the rocket in the first place. (Chemical energy, nuclear energy, whatever.)

So the flow of energy into and out of the rocket stays a net zero. (Actually, because the rockets aren't perfectly efficient - not all of the energy is perfectly converted into kinetic energy - more power leaves the rocket than enters.)
>>
>>7635950
Ah okay, that much makes sense to me. What's your rebuttal to this guy's post?

>Actually, even Shawyer doesn't claim that. (He says it gets less efficient as the square of velocity, to balance out the increase in kinetic energy with the square of velocity. The fact that this would break Lorentz invariance seems to be lost on him.)
>>
>>7635955
err, not that guy's post, but the claim he quotes in the post.
>>
>>7635364
To me the biggest implication is, as long as you have a star and a solar panel you have fuel. Am I off on this?
>>
>>7635963
>fuel
wat
>>
>>7635950
>As the vehicle gains kinetic energy, it also loses energy from whatever source you're using to power the rocket in the first place. (Chemical energy, nuclear energy, whatever.)

Another follow-up question:

Let's say our vehicle is on Earth and runs on solar energy driving DC motors, how does that relate to those equations when its source of energy isn't necessarily being depleted? Does this example not work because it's accelerating due to the force of friction and gravity?
>>
Observation outweighs theory, by a mile. Anyone arguing against this confirmed observation on the basis that it destroys theory is NOT a scientist.
>>
>>7636002
>Anyone arguing against this confirmed observation on the basis that it destroys theory is NOT a scientist.

Arguing on the basis that it's likely an experimental error instead of a groundbreaking violation of physical laws is somewhat reasonable though. There's a sensible middle ground, at least somewhere.
>>
>>7635955
>>7635960
>>7635941

I'm the same guy who made both posts, just FYI. As you can see right there, my rebuttal is that it would break Lorentz invariance.

To clarify what I mean in less technical terms, the basic problem is that this would mean there was an Absolute Correct Velocity, which physics largely abandoned around the time of Isaac Newton, and was finally smashed to pieces by Einstein's theory of relativity.

So sure, let's say you start from rest at 0 m/s, and start accelerating at, oh, 10% of the rate at which we gain kinetic energy, with the rest lost as heat or whatever. So far, so respectful of conservation of energy.

To pick a random number, let's say that 10 minutes in, we're going 1 m/s, and are using 1 kW of electric power to gain 0.1 kW of kinetic power.

Meanwhile, some astronaut with a telescope watching us from the Moon, which is rushing past us at around 1000 m/s.

From his perspective, then, when we start accelerating we're already going 1000 m/s relative to him. 10 minutes later, we're going 1001 m/s, and using 1 kW of electric power - but because of our much greater velocity, we're gaining about 100 kW of kinetic energy. Conservation of energy is completely smashed.

So in order for Shawyer's mechanism to be true, there would have to be One Correct Point Of View from which to measure all velocities, an absolute frame of rest, which you could determine your movement relative to at all times by measuring the efficiency of an EmDrive. Because in any other reference frame, conservation of energy will be broken. This is called a "preferred reference frame", and oh boy is it ugly.
>>
>>7635969
Fuel being photons to power the solar panel. But then i thought if you put emdrives on a generator shaft in a pinwheel configuration to turn it, then it would perpetually create its own means to power the magnetrons...

This is lunacy
>>
>>7636016
>From his perspective, then, when we start accelerating we're already going 1000 m/s relative to him. 10 minutes later, we're going 1001 m/s, and using 1 kW of electric power - but because of our much greater velocity, we're gaining about 100 kW of kinetic energy. Conservation of energy is completely smashed.

I see what you're saying here. Can you make a counter-example with a solar-powered motor on Earth? Just so I can see how the math plays out in a situation that doesn't violate relativity?
>>
>>7636002
If you aim a laser pointer directly over the surface of a lake or calm sea, you'll find that it is visible from a significant distance further than geometry (assuming a spherical Earth) and simple optics say it should have already dropped below the horizon. This is a real, replicable phenomenon.

You decide to double-check this once and for all, ruling out all sources of error. You carefully double-check the precise altitude of your laser pointer and observing point, precisely measure the distance between the two locations, and use a computer to do the math with the more correct approximation of the Earth's shape (bulged slightly at the equator), and find that to the limits of precision the laser pointer should have dropped below the horizon - and yet, it is visible!

You try blinking the laser pointer on and off in a predetermined pattern, just to make sure you're not actually seeing some other source of red light. It follows the blinks perfectly. There's no doubt about it - you're really seeing the same laser pointer, when it should have vanished over the horizon. This is weird, but definitely reality.

You have heard the established theory that the Earth is a sphere with a radius of approximately 4,000 miles. It's seemed pretty well-supported by evidence before.

Given this result, do you think it is most reasonable to argue:

>1. Given that the Earth has been shown pretty conclusively to be a sphere of such-and-such radius, this suggests that there is probably a source of error causing the light to not travel in perfectly straight lines. I know that light can be made to bend when moving through things like prisms, and there is all that air in between the laser and the observing point...

>2. This provides significant evidence that the curvature of the Earth may be substantially different than previously supposed. We should always be willing to consider experimental reality over theoretical navel-gazing.
>>
>>7636002
I think you mean to say an experiment outweighs a hypothesis by a mile.

The problem is the "confirmed observation" part. Unless the experiment is independently repeated with proper controls, they can't know if what they observed was magic thrust. So far they've observed a data point that could be thrust, but they can't know until they rule out alternatives, such as the likelyhood that this is an error.
>>
>>7636039
If you don't consider relativity, and simply assume that the velocities you measure directly from a single point of view are the Correct True Velocity, then a truly reactionless EmDrive can always be made to not violate Conservation of Energy by making the efficiency fall off with velocity, so you always gain kinetic energy at the same ratio relative to the electrical energy you use.

The problem occurs as soon as you have to observe it from two points, which are not at rest relative to each other. This will inevitably produce conservation of energy anomalies. Or when you decide that the universe is not objectively spinning around the Earth, and consider that the Earth's rotation means that the "stationary" Earth-mounted EmDrive is "actually" traveling in different directions at different velocities at different points throughout the day, not to mention at different points throughout the year when the Earth is at different points in its orbit.

Since it was experiments with electromagnetic radiation that ruled out an absolute rest frame in the first place (the idea of an absolute rest frame for light is known as the "aether", which you may have heard of), the idea that all that ceases to apply as soon as you put it in a copper cone is laughable, at best.
>>
>>7636080
>
The problem occurs as soon as you have to observe it from two points, which are not at rest relative to each other. This will inevitably produce conservation of energy anomalies. Or when you decide that the universe is not objectively spinning around the Earth, and consider that the Earth's rotation means that the "stationary" Earth-mounted EmDrive is "actually" traveling in different directions at different velocities at different points throughout the day, not to mention at different points throughout the year when the Earth is at different points in its orbit.

I understand that, but is the reason why this doesn't apply for the conventional forms of propulsion just because of the decrease in mass associated with a rocket thruster?

If so, why aren't there conservation of energy anomalies associated with observing the movement of a solar powered rover on Mars while it's accelerating?
>>
>>7636087
Because relativity prevents the kinetic energy from going above the energy input, since the velocity gain is too slow. The largest thrust to power ratio you can get is that of a 100% efficient photon drive, 3.33 microNewtons/kilowatt. Anything above this will eventually speed up to break conservation of energy even with relativistic speed corrections. Shawyer has attempted to fix this by adding a corrective scaling similar to to the relativistic scaling, but he created this out of thin air just to prevent it from breaking conservation.
>>
>>7636087
Here is an excellent paper on this

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494v1.pdf
>>
>>7636118
>Because relativity prevents the kinetic energy from going above the energy input, since the velocity gain is too slow.

So what if we just do another experiment where we run this thing to a speed where it should allegedly break relativity?
>>
>>7636118
> The largest thrust to power ratio you can get is that of a 100% efficient photon drive, 3.33 microNewtons/kilowatt

Riddle me this, Batman.

I own a car, as you probably do. It goes from 0 to 60 mph in roughly 5 seconds, and weighs roughly 3000 pounds. It does all of this with roughly 330 horsepower.

Assuming constant acceleration rate, and converting from the President's Imperial Burger Units, that works out to an acceleration of about 5.3 meters per second, a force of 7.3 kN, and a power of 246 kiloWatts.

At a ratio of about 30 million microNewtons/kiloWatt, this is massively more than a 100% efficient photon drive should be capable of. So why does anybody care about conservation of energy when I apparently can break it just by getting in a car?
>>
>>7636003

What experimental error hasn't been accounted for though? I see multiple independent confirmations with carefully controlled conditions and internet commentators are still screaming it down. When does science stop and dogma begin?
>>
>>7636050

>>
>>7636146
Every single reputable test so far has either been conducted in air, or conducted in vacuum.

In the case of experiments in air, thermal effects like convection current can easily overwhelm the tiny thrust signals you're trying to observe. Even if the EmDrive was based in reputable, universally accepted physics, and indeed was already in production, if I was building a satellite I still wouldn't use any EmDrive model which hadn't already been properly tested in vacuum, otherwise its measured thrust could be completely bogus and it could be way suckier than advertised.

Only one of the published experiments was actually conducted in vacuum. It also noted a thrust, which reversed when they flipped the device around, like you'd expect it to.

But when they flipped the device sideways, so the axis of thrust was perpendicular to the measuring device, they still measured a force larger than the previously measured thrust. In other words, there existed a source of un-accounted for error large enough to overwhelm the signal entirely. The paper explicitly pointed out electromagnetic interactions with the power feed lines as a potential source of false thrust.
>>
>>7636149
It's not a strawman. I would genuinely be willing to bet roughly equivalent amounts on

>The source of the measured EmDrive thrust signal does not violate Conservation of Energy or Conservation of Momentum, and nor does it violate the principle of relativity

and

>The Earth is at least roughly spherical

(I do think the latter is substantially more likely than the former, but Flat Earthers are far less likely to pay up if you disprove them, so it balances out.)
>>
>>7635929
For ion drives, propulsive efficiency goes down as the craft starts going faster than its exhaust velocity
>>
>>7636144
because the combustion engine is massively inefficient (relative to, you know, a photon drive) and it takes much more power than 246 kW to actually achieve 246 kW of applied power.

tl;dr you're forgetting about the loss of chemical energy
>>
>>7636149
I gave you a very clear example of a relevant case. Apparently you missed the point. Allow me to be a little more abstract, then:

Experiment informs theory, but theory informs you you how to *interpret* experimental results. It - along with past experience with what hypotheses and effects panned out and what didn't - gives you ideas of how likely various explanations could be.

And furthermore, when judging how much confidence you should place in any explanation for an experimental result, you should always leave some space for "A different effect I haven't thought of yet."

Our past experience tells us that claimed reactionless drives have never worked (Too many to list, but check out the Dean Drive), that sometimes experimental effects can be semi-reliably replicable and still be caused by experimental error (For instance, polywater - a mysterious gel-like liquid phase of water, which was made in several labs before turning out to be caused by failing to *completely* clean your experimental apparatus of dust and oil), and that when dealing with very small effects even really unusual sources of noise can be relevant (For instance, the mystery of the Pioneer anomaly, a strange acceleration that mystified scientists for years and led some to postulate modifications to gravity or the laws of motion. Turned out to be the tiny thrust from thermal radiation, caused by the probe emitting slightly more infrared light in one direction than the other.)

And theory tells us that reactionless drives shouldn't even be possible, and the theory telling us so has held up astonishingly well over the years. Actually, it's held up better than the idea of a spherical Earth - the Earth turned out not to be perfectly spherical, after all, and every time we map it more precisely we find new tiny asymmetries and gravity anomalies. And it doesn't really give much leeway in terms of "appears-to-be-reactionless-but-isn't-really" drives, either.

So the EmDrive is very unlikely.
>>
>>7636172
>Combustion engines are 0.00001% efficient

And where, exactly, is the rest of that energy going? (Let's say I carry a big tank along with me that I capture all the combustion products in, so you can't claim it's leaving as mass-energy)
>>
>>7636149
>>
>>7636056

The EM drive has been independentaly repeated with proper controls. What error have they not accounted for? Point it out.
>>
>>7636196

Hah, nice dodge. What have the em-drive experimenters missed? Point it out and win a prize!
>>
>>7636163

Drawing a comparison with flat-earthers is textbook strawman. Getting back to the actual subject, you speak as if the models of physics are complete when to date, physics in unable to describe many things, with several disparate and incomplete models. It is ironic that you use the flat-earther as an ad-hominem and strawman as is simple to ascertain that the Earth is a spherical body as long as one is not dogmatic, but the nature of spacetime and gravity has eluded physics for decades, likely because of dogma. The major roadblock against the emdrive observations being accepted is purely dogma as I have yet to see a convincing rebuttal other than "muh physics".
>>
>>7636247
The published experiments conducted in air inherently did not convincingly rule out thermal and convection forces, especially at the low thrust levels observed.

The one published experiment carried out in vaccum explicitly noted, within the paper, that electromagnetic interactions with the power feed lines was a source of error they had not yet figured out how to account for and which appeared to be potentially as large as the entire observed thrust signal.

And of course, because even the known models of physics are complicated and I am not a genius with instant insight, there is of course the possibility of the most probable explanation of all - "Something I haven't thought of yet."
>>
>>7636292

That's a plain old lie.
>>
Why don't they just build the damn thing and send it to the moon as a test?
>>
>>7636278
>The major roadblock against the emdrive observations being accepted is purely dogma as I have yet to see a convincing rebuttal other than "muh physics".

The major roadblock is repeatability and peer review. When both those things have happened, then I'd start blaming dogma for the lack of progress.

There's three ways to explain the observations

1) There's a way to produce thrust that's not currently explainable with our models

2) There's a way to produce thrust that is currently explainable with our models, we are just misunderstanding the device

3) There's an error in the experiment or measurement

Can we blame people for suspecting 3 is extremely likely? Especially when no progress has been made towards 1 and 2?
>>
>>7636300
I'm flattered you think that I'm a genius with instant insight, but I don't think you're correct there.

If you mean the other two sentences were a lie, you'll have to clarify which ones. The latter is pretty obvious because the paper in question literally says that, in a very direct and non-vague fashion.

So you probably mean the first one. Can you convincingly explain to me how the experiments conducted in air should not have been effected by thermal or convection forces?
>>
>>7636310

The experiment has clearly been repeated and refined and still produces the same observation. The peer review is those who have experimentally verified the observations and refined the experiment to account for error, and sideline commentators poopooing it because it possibly breaks the model.

Now you can accuse the experimentors of all being dumbshits and liars all you want, but the argument against is basically that.
>>
>>7636320

The vacuum experiment produces the same result.
>>
>>7636304
Because at current reliably demonstrated performance levels, that would cost about a million dollars.

You want to convincingly demonstrate it with a satellite? You'll want to improve the efficiency first.

And if you want to improve the efficiency, you're probably going to want to test it a few times on the ground anyway to learn how and if it works so you know how to build a better one.

Probably a better bet than spending a million bucks on something most scientists currently believe is likely bullshit.
>>
>>7636321
>The one published experiment carried out in vaccum explicitly noted, within the paper, that electromagnetic interactions with the power feed lines was a source of error they had not yet figured out how to account for and which appeared to be potentially as large as the entire observed thrust signal.

Hasn't there only been one test in a vacuum so far? What about what this anon said?:

>The one published experiment carried out in vaccum explicitly noted, within the paper, that electromagnetic interactions with the power feed lines was a source of error they had not yet figured out how to account for and which appeared to be potentially as large as the entire observed thrust signal.

>The peer review is those who have experimentally verified the observations and refined the experiment to account for error, and sideline commentators poopooing it because it possibly breaks the model.

Peer review is publishing in an academic journal and allowing a large body of scientists to scrutinize it.

>Now you can accuse the experimentors of all being dumbshits and liars all you want, but the argument against is basically that.

It sounds like the experimenters themselves know that their results aren't conclusive because the test isn't perfected.
>>
>>7636344
oops, first line is the wrong quote
>The experiment has clearly been repeated and refined and still produces the same observation.
>>
>>7635364
>You fuckers keep shitting on this tech, and now its confirmed to work, you say nothing?
Explain to us how it works and maybe we'll start taking it seriously.

As it stands, you have a micronewton force anomaly that you can't explain or determine a source of. At this point there's zero observational difference between this being a new physical phenomenon or a simple systematic error.
>>
>>7635650
Goddard was a nutjob. The best kind of nutjob.
>>
>>7636327
The vacuum experiment did indeed produce the same result. In fact, it even produced the same result - thrust measurement of about the same size - when they turned it vertically, so neither the front or back ends were pointing towards the thrust-measuring device.

This means that the experiment was, in fact, a null result: It showed no difference between the control test and the experimental cases. This is the closest thing there has been to a solid disproof of the EmDrive: They put it in vacuum and observed exactly as much thrust when it was facing the wrong way as they did in the direction it ought to have been producing thrust.

They also, by testing in both air and vacuum, identified how big the thermal and convection effects were. (Spoiler alert: They're big.)

And they identified magnetic interactions with the powerlines as the biggest uncharacterized source of error. If I'm not mistaken, the EmDrives tested in air also have powerlines. Maybe having the same result isn't that surprising.

(Link to the vacuum test paper: http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf )
>>
>>7635612
Nobody knows and so far the guy who supposedly invented it hasn't offered any explanation.

Best explanations to how it *could* generate thrust, as I understand it, are that it's not reactionless but is either

a) Generating a stream of neutrinos which, collectively, produce an extremely tiny amount of thrust.

b) Ablating material from the sides of the resonator chamber in the form of copper ions which are then accelerated out in the same manner as an ion engine propels ionized xenon or argon.

Neither of which are likely to be capable of generating macroscopic levels of thrust.
>>
>>7636377
>so far the guy who supposedly invented it hasn't offered any explanation.

Actually, Shawyer started with the explanation and designed the thruster based on it. The problem is, his explanation is complete bullshit, and if he invented a working drive based on it it will have been entirely by accident.

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
>>
>>7636344

Whatever man, that's just moving the goalposts. If this drive is indeed impossible then it should be very easy to disprove, yet there have been a whole lot of teams who have tested this experiment, and a whole lot of expert who have reviewed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Testing_and_replication_claims

Findings have been replicated every time and at most, nobody has been able to disprove the effect. From the Dresden team findings:

>Electromagnetic interference was also shielded with high magnetic permeability iron sheets.
>The device produced positive thrusts in the positive direction and negative thrusts in the negative direction of about 20 micronewtons in a hard vacuum, consistent with the low Q factor.
>Besides being tested horizontally in both directions on the torsion pendulum, the cavity was also set upwards as a "null" configuration. >However, this vertical test intended to be the experimental control showed an anomalous thrust of hundreds of micronewtons that could be caused by a magnetic interaction with the power feeding lines going to and from liquid metal contacts in the setup.
>This anomalous interaction was not fully understood. As a result, the authors conclude they can not confirm or refute claims about such a thruster, and they recommend further investigation. They plan future experiments with better magnetic shielding, other vacuum tests and improved cavities with higher Q factors to increase thrust.

Predictably:

>Eric W. Davis, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, noted "The experiment is quite detailed but no theoretical account for momentum violation is given by Tajmar, which will cause peer reviews and technical journal editors to reject his paper should it be submitted to any of the peer-review physics and aerospace journals."

So there's a chicken and egg roadblock in the investigation of this effect.
>>
>>7636393
The Dresden team found that the "null" configuration, which shouldn't have worked at all, produced several times as much measured thrust as in the actual test. It says this right in your quote.

They identified a possible source of error which could cause this - magnetic interaction with the power feeding lines. It says so right in your quote.

And in the process of testing in both air and vacuum, they measured other large error sources that could have caused false signals in previous tests. (I'm quoting from the paper here; it's not in the specific block of text you're referencing.)

The paper is not exactly the lethal smackdown of EmDrive haters you seem to think it is. Any time you have discover an uncharacterized source of error known to be larger than the signal you're supposedly measuring you have done exactly the opposite of proving the signal's legitimacy.
>>
I believe this device is powered by butthurt, which seems to be endless when this drive is mentioned.
>>
>>7636144
kek
Energy is still conserved in your scenario

KE = 0.5*3000 pounds* (60 mph)^2= 489.499 KJ
Energy in= 330 HP * 5 seconds = 1230 KJ

Energy out is less than energy in, your assertion that conservation of energy is broken in this case is false.

Also, your vehicle must be going faster than 33 m/s and still apply the same input power in order for it to violate conservation of energy.
Power supply

>>7636172
we don't need to know about the efficiency of the combustion engine to figure out if it violates conservation of energy in this case
>>
>>7636409

They don't understand what caused the "error" and offered a possible explanation, which you seem to run with as a refutation despite the quote

>the authors conclude they can not confirm or refute claims about such a thruster

When and experiment has refuted the observation, I will accept that it didn't happen. Until then, I will be a scientist and wait for results before poopooing it.
>>
>>7636356
source?
>>
>>7636393
>Whatever man, that's just moving the goalposts.

Peer review has always been the goal post.

>If this drive is indeed impossible then it should be very easy to disprove, yet there have been a whole lot of teams who have tested this experiment

Of course, but 7 tests of varying quality, with none of them being published in journals yet, isn't anything to be excited about.

>and a whole lot of expert who have reviewed it.

Not formally, but the informal appraisal hasn't been positive.

>Findings have been replicated every time and at most

Which findings specifically? Unexplained thrust that can be the result of a lot of different things? There's really nothing that concludes its from the device in the way described by the claim.

>nobody has been able to disprove the effect. From the Dresden team findings:

Did you read the part you quoted? Where in the control test they got the most micronewtons? The best test we have is plagued with interference they couldn't control for, and they branded their own findings as inconclusive.

"It hasn't been disproven" just doesn't mean anything because it hasn't been tested sufficiently. There's no concrete evidence it works at this point, and considering the hurdles it has in terms of explanations, it's just very unlikely.
>>
>>7636466
>>Eric W. Davis, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, noted "The experiment is quite detailed but no theoretical account for momentum violation is given by Tajmar, which will cause peer reviews and technical journal editors to reject his paper should it be submitted to any of the peer-review physics and aerospace journals."

But I'll add this part annoys me. So a journal isn't going to evaluate findings because there isn't a complete explanation for them? Isn't the point of a journal to get a shitload of eyeballs on something to because someone out there has the answer? Would it be more acceptable with a bullshit explanation for the thrust?
>>
>>7636476
You could publish short papers on unexplained observations 20-30 years ago (hell just look at the early history of dusty plasma research) but most have a higher standard now.

Saying "hey we did an experiment and something weird happened" isn't enough anymore, you've got to at least try to explain why you think it happened.

One of my professors was giving a seminar updating the faculty on one of his experiments and his group thinks they've discovered a fundamentally new plasma phenomenon but the papers have been rejected so far because they have absolutely no idea *why* the effect occurs, so now they're trying everything they can think of to develop a working model of it
>>
>>7636466
>Peer review has always been the goal post.

>Eric W. Davis, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, noted "The experiment is quite detailed but no theoretical account for momentum violation is given by Tajmar, which will cause peer reviews and technical journal editors to reject his paper should it be submitted to any of the peer-review physics and aerospace journals."

So basically ignore the experimental observation and it goes away. Sure is science around here. :^)
>>
>>7636476
well if you can't demonstrate that it's not an experimental error then you have garbage and no one will accept it.(excepting psychology journals)
>>
>>7636466

The experiment has produced consistent and predictable observations. While there may be some interference, there could also feasibly be some totally new effect which is not understood.

The never said that the observation was interference, just that it could possibly account for it and they need to further test for it. Just saying it's interference is way too handwavey for a scientific test and doesn't actually control for it.
>>
>>7636492
Yeah but that's not the basis for rejection. The basis for rejection is there is no attempt to account for why the thrust is there.

So let's say they perform a perfect experiment that would satisfy even the most skeptic peers, hell, repeat a perfect experiment, share the procedures and findings, and others do the same. None of these will ever be published in journals because no one knew how to explain the thrust, or wanted to sack their career with an explanation they knew was bullshit. What if the person with the answer is out there, but they never see the research because it's not in the journals? Guess it'll have to happen outside the journals.
>>
>>7636497
>The experiment has produced consistent and predictable observations.

No. Sometimes it works as described by the claim and sometimes it doesn't.

>While there may be some interference, there could also feasibly be some totally new effect which is not understood.

"Possible" and "feasible" isn't meaningful. This applies to any hypothesis to some degree.

>The never said that the observation was interference, just that it could possibly account for it and they need to further test for it. Just saying it's interference is way too handwavey for a scientific test and doesn't actually control for it.

Yeah but it's a reasonable explanation. The drive was pointed in a way that shouldn't produce thrust according to the claim, yet they got thrust. Suggesting the thrust isn't from the claimed reaction, but from interference for which they had a suspect source. That interference also could have been present in the non-control readings.
>>
>>7636142
>So what if we just do another experiment where we run this thing to a speed where it should allegedly break relativity?
The thing doesn't run at all so nothing would happen. But if you have the cash to launch a cubesat, go ahead.
>>
You'd think that physicists would be at least curious about this as a possible horizon expanding observation. After all, the field has barely moved in the past century.
>>
>>7636507
I just read that the latest NASA test is going to be published

this gun be good
>>
The tears of the autists denyers in this thread are delicious.
>>
It's measurement error
>>
>>7636578
I'd expect them to be as curious about this as those free energy devices because it's just as ridiculous.

>>7636663
layman gtfo
>>
>>7635364
It doesn't 'work' until it's in commercial use.
>>
>>7636507
>Yeah but that's not the basis for rejection. The basis for rejection is there is no attempt to account for why the thrust is there.
You've misunderstood. That's the basis for rejection, within the larger context of weak experimental technique.

If they had a good reason for thrust to be there, a limited experiment showing thrust would be of enough interest to warrant publication.

Without a good reason for thrust, there has a strong presumption of experimental error, unless the experiment is something really beyond reproach.

Nobody wants to publish a, "Hey, my complicated gadget I built is acting funny!" paper.

The experiment was originally to test a theory about how a reactionless drive might be possible. It disproved it, when they got the same thrust from control tests, ruling out the mechanism that prompted the experiment. It wasn't an experiment to measure some fundamental thing.

They have to rework it until the best explanation isn't that they just haven't figured out what they're doing wrong, if they want to get published.
>>
>>7635376
>Troll face

>>
>>7635379
If you lit a tube full of hydrogen and oxygen, it would just blow up. It might throw you a few dozen yards into the air, but it wouldn't fly you to the moon.
>>
>>7636016
Well, just because something "appears" to violate the conservation of energy from afar doesn't mean that it really does, right?
>>
>>7635364
yahoo as a new source lol
>>
Electrical energy dissappear. Kinetic energy is gained. This doesn't violate any classical physics.

The emitted photons are just each other cancelling their E-field so we don't see them but they surely leave the apparatus.
>>
File: trollsci.png (68 KB, 1000x900) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
68 KB, 1000x900
>>
>>7635787

>The later replications took place at substantially lower power levels

The opposite. The later tests were done at substantially higher power levels, with a more sesative method of measurement and still a smaller amount of thrust was measured, inversely proportional to the increase in sensitivity.

It's a measuement error ghost.

The tgechnology will be killed dead only when they put one in space and it fails to accelerate itself at all. I'm dying to see the conspiracy theories that will set off.

>it actually worked, you guys, but the ion thruster companies suppressed it to maintain their monopoly.
>the electric rocket was killed by Big Xenon
>>
>>7636369

Sir, you stated calm while a troll or idiot behaved like a troll or an idiot, and proved your point so conclusively and politely, modestly but firmly, that he didn't even reply to your last post at all.

Bravo.
>>
>>7636866
shut up, you don't know what you're talking
>>
>>7636419
>Until then, I will be a scientist and wait for results before poopooing it.

It would appear that many EmDrive supporters go far beyond merely not "poopooing it," and instead assume it is real until disproven. A scientist does the opposite, and assumes nothing is true until proven.

Look up Russell's Teapot.

The default position of a scientist is one of doubt and skepticism. You seem to percieve this as cynicism, and us as cynics. We are not. But there is, as yet, no convincing evidence the effect exists, and so we doubt it does. Simple as that.
>>
>>7636764
Memes never die, anon. Their data just gets reconfigured.
>>
File: well I guess.gif (570 KB, 500x325) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
570 KB, 500x325
>Fill dielectric medium with science
>???
>Reactionless Thrust
>>
>>7636921
I know everything
>>
>>7636204
Heat. Ya moran. Instead of impulse.
>>
>>7636204
>And where, exactly, is the rest of that energy going?
This new and exciting thing called HEAT.
>>
>>7637190
What does High Explosive Anti Tank got to do with car engines?
>>
Does heat produce thrust?
>>
>>7636204
most of the energy IS leaving as wasted mass you dipshit, because you use a lot of energy to rearrange those atoms and then toss them out the back as exhaust. the rest is wasted on heat. the tiniest amount is work.
>>
>>7637301
So say I'm driving a Tesla, then. Still converts chemical energy to mechanical power, but no exhaust.
>>
Why don't they make it bigger?
>>
>>7637249
Explode them?
>>
>>7636911
>Big Xenon

10/10 rare that I actually laugh out loud at something
>>
>>7637301
>the tiniest amount is work.
Rocket engines are actually reasonably efficient, as heat engines go. On the way to LEO, launch vehicles convert around 5-15% of their chemical energy to orbital energy, which is about as efficient as firearms are at accelerating bullets. The most energy efficient launch vehicles lift off with low exhaust velocity (solid strap-on boosters), boost with medium exhaust velocity (a kerosene main stage), and reach orbit with high exhaust velocity (a hydrogen upper stage), like Atlas V 551 or Titan IIIE.

Under ideal conditions, when speed matches exhaust velocity, their efficiency is very good. Most of the losses are actually from kinetic energy remaining in the exhaust, for instance on lift-off, the rocket is near-stationary, so if exhaust is thrown out at 3 km/s, most of the energy is going into that and not the vehicle, but when the craft itself reaches 3 km/s (assuming, for simplicity, that exhaust velocity hasn't changed, which isn't quite true in the real world due to the influence of air pressure), the exhaust is left near stationary in its track and ideal propulsive efficiency is reached, then as it approaches the ~8 km/s of orbital speed, the exhaust is being left behind at 5 km/s and efficiency is worse than on lift-off.

Real launch vehicles also suffer from aerodynamic and gravity drag losses, neither of which can be called engine efficiency.

An object's orbital energy in LEO is a little over an equivalent mass of hydrocarbon fuel like gasoline or the high-grade jet fuel used in rockets. So to get something to orbit, a rocket needs ~12 times that thing's mass in hydrocarbon fuel, plus nearly triple the fuel's mass in oxygen so it can burn. Real-world single-fuel rockets like Falcon 9 do indeed have a payload roughly equal to one fiftieth of their lift-off mass.
>>
>>7636902
favorite one-- fuckn saved
>>
>>7635364
Why is this shit still posted?

It hasn't done shit for the 14 years people have known about it you honestly expect this scam to work at all?

1 year from now you still won't be hearing shit about this because it doesn't work you fucking faggots.
>>
>>7635639
>If it does work then we have a whole lot of rethinking to do
Wanna bet it actually works just so all that I've learned so far was fucking useless and all those hours I spent studying I was getting keked?
>>
I don't get it.
Why would it break any fundamental laws?
You still need a constant power source to fuel it with microwaves and those waves just decay away or whatever, also it obviously can't be used as a perpetual motion engine since it requires more energy to move it than the kinetic energy it produces.
>>
>>7635379
it's not that easy
>>
>>7637828
equal opposite reaction thing
>>
>>7637856
The opposite reaction is the butthurt it generates.
>>
>>7637828
Imagine a sealed paint can in space that is absolutely perfectly still. Inside the paint can is a RC helicopter glued to the bottom, and the can is full of air.

When the RC helicopter's rotors spin, it pushes air on the bottom of the paint can.

Would the can move? No, because this is a closed system with no reaction force.

For an example of an open system with a reaction force, imagine if we poked a hole in the can and the air rushed out. The air rushing out is the action, and the resulting paint can's thrust is the equal and opposite reaction.
>>
>>7635364
I dont have areaction picture to describe my orgasmic feelings
>>
>>7635386
literally retarded
>>
There's either gas trapped inside that vessel and when the microwave is turned on it heats up and expands enough to slowly leak out OR the microwave is causing the ions in the metal to be ejected.

It doesn't work. Sorry.
>>
>>7635409

Their first paper has been reviewed, though it had raised issues with electrical interference from the test equipment as the reason why. This new test addresses those issues and like the first paper, had the discussions at nasaspaceflight first. This tests initially shows that the interference was not the cause of the force.
>>
>>7635857
>researchers are kind of afraid to touch it in case it turns out to be bunk and tarnishes their name forever
Seriously? We politics now?
>>
>>7635364
>cites a yahoo article
>>
>>7636369
Maybe it's some kind of quantum device? You only observe thrust wherever you put the detector. Would explain the conservation problems; momentum is conserved because it's actually thrusting in all directions, we just observe one thrust.
>>
>>7636484
>One of my professors was giving a seminar updating the faculty on one of his experiments and his group thinks they've discovered a fundamentally new plasma phenomenon but the papers have been rejected so far because they have absolutely no idea *why* the effect occurs
Great so now no-one else would ever know about it to actually give the explanation. Academic establishment everyone. And FYI it's extra retarded because science technically has nothing to do with theory, at it's core it is simply recording repeatable observations. Today Newton's law of gravitation would have been trashed because it gave no explanation as to how it worked it was just simply years of planetary observations collated into one rule.
>>
>>7636911
>Big Xenon
I'll give you 9/10 that was pretty funny, I chuckled.
>>
>>7638786
>science technically has nothing to do with theory, at it's core it is simply recording repeatable observations

Science is entirely about building models with predictive power, aka theories. That is the entire purpose of the scientific method.

>Today Newton's law of gravitation would have been trashed because it gave no explanation as to how it worked it was just simply years of planetary observations collated into one rule.

Newton's law of universal gravitation was explained by mass being attractive to other mass. It isn't terribly detailed (and the law isn't terribly accurate), but it is a testable mechanism of action. For a more modern and similar theory, see the basic two-component theories of superconductivity before BCS theory, like Landau-Ginzberg theory. Having some mechanism of action is better than none because you are at least putting forward a model with predictive power and not simply an observation. Turning to the observation of a "novel plasma phenomenon," it is possible that there are other problems with the work aside form the lack of a causative mechanism which the presence of a causative mechanism would alleviate (i.e. the referees are uncertain that the phenomenon is universal and not arising from some unaccounted for aspect of the specific apparatus).
>>
>>7635706
Nice meme rocket
>>
Physics by far is the most dogmatic of all fields, despite stubbornly clinging to garbage theories because of muh purity (superstring lol) or just absolutely broken as fuck (muh dark turds).

Fuck the field of physics, it is a joke.
>>
>emdrive

>THE MATHS SAID IT DOESN'T WORK THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK DESPITE OBSERVATION

>dank matter

>THE MATHS SAID IT EXISTS THEREFORE IT EXISTS DESPITE LACK OF OBSERVATION

>science
>>
No serious scientist would waste his time with this.
>>
>>7639278
>MUH MODELS SAY IT SO!!!!
>>
>>7639278
Really this has a clear explanation.

For the EMdrive, there is obviously something wrong with the maths as we can from observation see it is wrong. If our maths cannot predict the outcome then they are wrong.

For the dark matter we essentially do not completely know if the maths is wrong but we can't just assume that it is wrong. In fact, it is more scientific to, until observation proves you wrong, believe in the maths because it is actually proven shit that is able to predict other stuff.

Imagine if 200 years ago when people observed irregularities in Uranus' orbit, as predicted by newtonian physics, people would have just burned all calculus related papers and considered it a dead science, instead of sticking to their guns and realizing that there was, mathematically, another planet that must be causing the irregularities. And so Neptune was discovered.
>>
I respect scientists, curious, exploratory, critical of new observations and ideas, but open to them.

I despise fedora tipping /sci/entists. You guys suck some mad balls.
>>
>>7635612
Are you familiar with Warhammer 40 K orcs?
>>
>>7636902
The thrust would move that car backwards, the wider side moves forward.
>>
>>7639447
its called trollphysics
>>
>>7639447
Successful troll.
>>
>>7639354
What you're forgetting is all of the millions of times when some jackass or other thought he had noticed something amazing that contradicted everything we had learned so far, but he was just being sloppy.

Very few of those are in the history books because it happens every day.

They just usually don't get media attention. Go on youtube, and you'll find a thousand clowns telling you about how they've made a perpetual motion machine or a reactionless drive or a cold fusion water heater.

The EMdrive people are clowns. They had an idea of how they might make a propellantless vacuum thruster, and they tested it, and they found thrust. So they crowed that their idea worked. Then they tested in a control configuration meant to eliminate thrust, and the thrust was still there. Admit their experimental technique is crap? No, now they're acting like they've stumbled on some other means of propellantless vacuum thruster.
>>
File: motion.png (8 KB, 406x431) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
8 KB, 406x431
>>7639447
>the wider side moves forward
Net thrust points out of the big end and the measured reaction force points from big end toward small end. If it could, the drive would move in the direction of the small end.
>>
>>7639623
What makes you think EMwaves have a propulsionary effect ? Don't you need fuckloads of energy input to even get a tiny thrust ?
>>
>>7635627
>fundemental law of the universe

Anon, we build the first airplane just a century ago. Our science is literally baby tier. If you think we perfectly understand "fundamental laws of the universe" you are very wrong.
>>
File: 1367003829250.jpg (104 KB, 512x512) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
104 KB, 512x512
>mfw red things do go faster
>>
>>7639625
I do not expect propulsion in the traditional sense, I just borrowed the inventor's terminology to clarify things. We will know whether it really works when they use the NWPU model for orbit adjustment and drag compensation of Tiangong-3 (^.^)
>>
>>7639623
You're an idiot, the total force from the microwaves are equal on both sides, since hitting the slanted walls imparts a force in the direction of the small side.
>>
>>7639354

The best part of dark matter and energy is actually believing that 97% of the cosmos is unobservable simply because it makes the maths work and fits in with dogma. Whereas accepting something like gravity having instantaneous propigation is haram because it breaks dogma, despite the propagation speed of gravity being an unobserved assumption.
>>
they should just leave it on for a while and see what happens...
>>
>>7640529
There's several expensive experiments going on right now that could settle the speed of gravity question. You really think that's a good example?
>>
>>7639541
But lots of separate people are getting the same result. The thing works, just accept that your current understanding of the universe is wrong. /sci/ sounds like the church when Copernicus said he saw the Earth orbiting the Sun.
>>
>>7640564
Ten people getting the same result in not enough to rule out millions observing the opposite effect. the conservation of momentum is an established law of modern physics that never been observed to be violated except in this case.

Are you actually arguing to chuck it all out just because of a few experiments that more than likely have some kind of systematic error? You sound like a nutcase.
>>
>>7640820
That's retard logic, the rule is only broken within the EM drive, every EM drive tested has worked ergo EM drives work.
>>
>>7640845
That's retard logic. It's more probable that these tests are subject to the same source of error since they study the same mechanism (but get wildly different results that are on the border of statistical insignificance) than a law of physics is wrong.
>>
>>7635364
If it really is real it'll obey the laws of thermodynamics in a way we didn't expect or force us to change our theories. It's not the end of the world if our theories are incorrect.
>>
>>7640558

I'll wait for actual observation before making my mind up, but I won't hold my breath considering how futile gravity experments have been to date.
>>
>>7640930

It likely doesn't even break thermodynamics; it may only show some unknown property of space or that electromagnetism has some inertial properties or something.
>>
>>7635364
$\text{Assuming the drive works}*$
Does the mEMe-drive scale linearly? If I doubled its size would I get double the thrust proportionally? Does anyone know its ideal thrust to weight ratio?
$*\text{Assuming the drive works}$
>>
>>7635627
>planes are magic because they go against a fundamental law of the universe "denser materials can't float above less dense ones"

I believe we're fucking with the "source code" of the universe. We're just dealing in aspects we can't understand.
>>
>mfw it's producing thrust in the n-dimensional wall that separates our false vacuum from the real one
>mfw this is how civilizations die
>>
>>7641807
>mfw the memedrive works by unleashing demons from another dimension
>>
>>7638564
>this anon thinks escaping gas isn't completely fucking obvious in a vacuum
>>
>>7637285
Not in a vacuum. In a gas it would heat the gas locally, forcing it to expand, creating pressure->force
>>
>>7637305
But a Tesla doesn't use propulsion. It has wheels.
>>
Is physics even a legitimate field of science any more?
>>
>>7636333
>a million dollars
So, Andrew Hussie can raise 2.5 million for a cheap game nobody is interested in anymore, yet NASA itself can't raise one million to bring humanity much further into the space age?
Surely it's more than 1m.
>>
>>7641740
This
>>
>>7643160
Clearly NASA should go back to 2012 and make a kickstarter to find space trolls.
>>
Maybe it's like an uncertainty thing.

It doesn't output force if you're trying to measure the force.
>>
>>7643169
Does anyone even still care about Homestuck anymore?
The plot's gone from being hard to understand to just outright messy, I stopped reading it ages ago.
I just wish he would continue with his greater works such as Humanimals and SBaHJ.
>>
>>7643169
Yeah why doesn't NASA kickstarter this shit? An official NASA kickstarter for a reactionless drive would raise millions.
>>
>>7635627
>Law

You mean a fancy word for "Our best guess"
>>
>>7640529
you realize that if gravity moves with instant speed, you could talk to yourself in the future using a third party by playing with plane of simultaneity of the 3rd party.
>>
Its a bullshit drive. There is no peer-review paper on the engine. Its all PR hype created by NASA. This drive violates a lot of the laws of physics.
>>
>>7644733
They are doing these tests to write the paper you fucking dumbolord.
All EM drive news are basically coming from that forum thread where the NASA guys are discussing the results.
>>
>>7644741
>discussing results
This is why this board is shit. That's not evidence. Its just like 4chan talking about wormholes. Doesn't mean 4chan knows anything baout wormholes. Also you don't release news without evidence. This is a thinly veiled funding drive. This is what happened to Lockheed Martin when they said they were close to creating a fusion reactor 100 times smaller than ITER. The whole science community tore them a new asshole because they haven't released one peer-review paper since the project began. You're nothing more than a popsci faggot who belongs at /b/ or /x/.
>>
FUCK YOU NEWTON
>>
>>7644733
>2nd year college kid doesn't believe in EM Drive
>NASA does
Gee I wonder who I should listen to?
>>
>>7644756
>NASA doesn't have a history of being proven wrong
Gee I wonder why no one takes you guys seriously.
>>
>>7644755
REKT YOU EINSTEIN
>>
>>7643160
Why don't you buy lottery tickets? For just a few bucks, you could become a multimillionaire, and never have to worry about money again! Are you seriously telling me that you paid $10 for a videogame, but you can't even raise$5 to reach the life of your dreams?

It's been repeatedly replicated - dozens of confirmed cases have bought lottery tickets and won a jackpot.
>>
>>7644763
>>7644756

NASA doesn't believe in it. NASA believes in their own tests, and they openly state there needs to be more tests made.
>>
>>7644753
But Lockheed had no results, they simply said they were going to build a fusion reactor. In case you ahvent noticed the EM drive already exists and is ready to go in space but it is being held back because nobody will fund it unless somebody explains why it works. it's like if Lockheed really did make the fusion reactor, it clearly generated power but everyone refused to buy it because they simply refused to believe that it really worked despite the evidence.
>>
>>7644775
Well there you have it. NASA is saying "we don't know yet, let's wait and see" meanwhile know-it-all kids on here are declaring it to be bullshit before the tests are even complete!
>>
>>7644780

Very true. I'm optimistic for EM drive, but I'd hate to think what would happen if it's true. The patent owners will be undeservedly rich. The oil companies will go nuts.
>>
>>7644780
That's NASA lingo for it doesn't work. The more testing means they want to be sure it doesn't work. Everyone on /sci/ is thinking OMFG FTL TRAVEL, MOON COLONY, MARS TERRAFORMING, ALIEN BUKKAKE.
>>
>>7644782
Who would get the Nobelprize for it? Shawyer, or whoever comes up with a real theory of how it works?
>>
>>7644786
lost
>>
>>7644791
Probably whoever explains the theory
Shawyers theories probably aren't right so, he doesn't get shit lol
>>
>>7644786
>we don't know means it doesn't work
Have you tried not being such a negative cynical person?
>>7644791
Nobel prizes are for theory not design so the latter.
>>
>>7644791
>>7644793
>>7644795
They're probably giving it to everyone. They usually share the prize among a few people who contributed in a meaningful way when the breakthrough has more caliber, which is the case.
>>
>>7644799
Nobel prize is an old boys club. The woman who discovered the pulsar never got it because "she was just a helper". It's like you only get it if you already have recognition in the field.
>>
>>7644713

Causality is a belief founded on nothing but dogma. Quantum mechanics already breaks causality and I'd be prepared to accept another break if it fixed the science of gravity.
>>
>>7645094
explain how quantum mechanics breaks causality. Not saying you are wrong, but it may be semantics.

I think this gets into the semantics of determenism. Like, there is "the future i determined because it is entirely predictable from present data", but also "the future is determined in the sense that it is immutable and preset, even if we don't or can't know what will happen in it". The second definition can be true without the first one being true, but I think the first would imply the second.

To my knowledge, QM indicates the first sense of determinism is false. So we can't predict the future form present data. However I don't think it says anything about my second defintion. If it does, then it seems that it is at direct odds with special relativity. In which case you are right, causality may not exist in the way people think about it. I am no expert in this though so I am happy to be correctd.
>>
>>7635854
Space isn't really an expanse of nothing, it's just that the stuff there has a ridiculously low density. You could theoretically use a magnetic field to push on particles in space like a propeller, but at that point you'd have something that's functionally equivalent to a Bussard ramjet.
>>
>>7645260
In deep space you can expect to find ~1 particle, mostly hydrogen, per cubic centimeter. At least, that's how it seems so far.

It would difficult to use that for anything.
>>
>>7635899
Just curious, how do power and force work when V = 0? It seems that the math doesn't work since that would require dividing by zero.
>>
>>7636801
Why couldn't you just use a bigger tube?

>>7639278
Dank matter?

>>7645275
Well that's enough for a Bussard ramjet to run on (though you'd need to be going fast to begin with, and have massive magnetic fields to collect it).
>>
>>7635364
Being skeptical of an unconfirmed technology that contradicts expectations is not shitting on it, it's being logical. Now provide a scientific paper on it and many more successful reproductions of these results, then we'll talk.
>>
>>7645275

The point is that space itself is something with properties.
>>
>>7645196

Uncertainty principle shows that determinism is impossible. It has also been observed that quantum effects occur at the atomic and molecular level, and the last time I looked everything includeing us was made of quantum objects so it is dogmatic NOT to extrapolate QM to our level.

Getting back to causality, while it's not often spoken in polite company it is clear that spooky action at a distance and entanglement is an undeniable quantum property. Combine this with the recent practical proof of Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment and we can see that at the quantum level, causality is an illusion at best.

So for the original point, we see that at some level that causality isn't as we assume, and therefore assuming that gravity must propagate at c because of causality issues is based on nothing more than assumption.
>>
File: char.jpg (33 KB, 375x375) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
33 KB, 375x375
>>7640008
>mfw
>>
>>7635364
>You fuckers keep shitting on this tech
>tech

You mean a non-functioning prop and dead-end experiment?
>>
>>7647262
explain why it moves
>>
File: images (9).jpg (38 KB, 332x443) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
38 KB, 332x443
>>7648475

Because it can feel the rhythm of the beat.
>>
>>7646060
No, it doesn't.
>>
>>7648542
Forgot to quote:
>Uncertainty principle shows [gibberish implying a universe that is probabilistic by nature here].
>Conveniently skirting around what affords this probabilistic functioning.
>>
File: 1444788011550.jpg (40 KB, 387x624) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
40 KB, 387x624
Some of you are just spouting malarkey. The Universe and her workings is an unlit room, for simplicity. And science is the method of creating a map for this room. Humanity's physics is a form of cartography for this room, and what it yields is a pretty nice map. We've touched the walls, we've measured the floor, we've figured out the basic dimensions of the ceiling. The prevailing idea is that this room is a perfect cube. So when a scientist runs his fingers across a part of the wall which has previously not been touched, and feels a slight dip, everyone flips out. Why? Some of you people. Seriously. Because you get very used to the theories you grew up with? Don't get used to them, that's so lazy. Just because something is experimentally proven to be one way a million times does not make it true. It makes it very, immensely probable, and no matter how much anyone wants, it has very little to do with anything else. You might backpedal one day, and find out there was an instrumentation error... and nothing frustrates me more than a person saying "it shouldn't be this way", just because they got a little too used to a theory. Everything a person says, in the scientific community, was made up by someone at some time. All of this is make believe. Most of it is on to something, a good deal of it is very much on the right track, but it's still fucking make belief. It's the method in which we make believe that is impressive. We have a method for it, and that method is very effective, it's amazingly effective. But it's amazingly fucking effective at giving the wrong impression if it's taught poorly. Some people genuinely think that a theory is the end of the road. It's just the beginning. Remember that before you go about saying "this isn't supposed to work this way". You don't fucking know how this is supposed to work. Nobody does. We're figuring it out, and we'll be figuring it out until none of us are left. If that doesn't sit well with you, then go play with astrology.
>>
>>7648547

>greentext
>>
>>7648599
>semi-substantial greentext
>obligatory mocking false polarized addition, also in greentext
>>
>>7648605

>
>>
>>7648547

>fuzzy probability is equivalent to determinism
>greentext
>>
>>7648572

Sage words little chinese cartoon girl.
>>
>>7648606
>>

>>7648613
>
>>
File: Charlie.jpg (9 KB, 217x217) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
9 KB, 217x217
>>7648619

<
>>
>>7648636
>^<V
>>
File: FOT1EAA.jpg (27 KB, 432x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
27 KB, 432x768
>>7648640

-
>>
>>7635773
Integration over time anon
acceleration is the velocity over time
>>
>>7635386
I think the point is that it precisely doesnt instantly dissipate. In the meantine it pushes "on itself". Anyway thrusters do produce thrust in space. That's a fact; Altought yes you can assume that its less effective in vacuum than at Patm. Anyone dare to correct if I'm wrong?
>>
>>7643590
Until a better one is discovered, yes. The earth used to be flat too.
>>
>>7638766
Politics sez who gets money and who doesn't.
>>
>>7648640
^^vv<><>ba start
>>
File: goddard_and_rocket.jpg (4 MB, 2400x2946) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
4 MB, 2400x2946
>>7635364

Pic related: my one photo summation of why I hate the stupid ass Em drive.

See what's going on? This dude came up with a rocket design, and he's actually standing next to the thing, as it's about to be launched.

Emfags keep talking up the stupid thing, and how it's going to get us to Mars and beyond, and...WHERE'S THE FUNCTIONING PROTOTYPE?!1!!

Call us all when the damned thing's zooming across the sky. Until then, just STFU about all it's "potential". It's goddamned room temperature superconductors and cold fusion all over again.
>>
>>7649134

Only idiots believed the earth was flat, it was never a general scientific belief.
>>
>>7649636

Only popsci fags are talking about getting to Mars in a couple of hours or whatever.
>>
>>7636377
>Ablating material from the sides of the resonator chamber in the form of copper ions which are then accelerated out in the same manner as an ion engine propels ionized xenon or argon.

I've heard this before but I don't see how this could be the case, since it's a closed tube. Unless the ions are being split off the outside of the casing in some strange way. Anway you'd hardly get measurable thrust from that.
>>
>>7636476

No, a journal is to publish easy, reliable stuff that adds to your CV and your reputation, thus making it easier to get funding and promotions. Very few people actually give a shit about risky discoveries.
>>
>>7637476
>Real-world single-fuel rockets like Falcon 9 do indeed have a payload roughly equal to one fiftieth of their lift-off mass.
in other words, 98% of your starting wieght

is fuel
>>
>>7649651
It sure was hundreds of years ago when nobody knew anything about these things. I was just referring to how our views and laws of the world keep evolving with new discoveries. Earth used to be the center of the universe too until Galilei came along.
>>
>>7650304
>hundreds
try many thousands.
>>
>>7650308
More like 500 years. Everyone was scared shitless that Kolumbus would fall off the edge of the world when he set off to cross the atlantic. And Kopernikus and Galilei were almost killed as heretics by the church when they came up with the idea that everything doesn't revolve around earth.
>>
>>7650320
>More like 500 years.
No, more like many thousands. It was figured out both that the earth was round and even its circumference to a pretty good measure way back in ancient egypt. It remained common knowledge after that. Yes, even in the terrible grimdark alabama fundementalist uneuphoric dark ages.
>Everyone was scared shitless that Kolumbus would fall off the edge of the world when he set off to cross the atlantic.
No they weren't. They called him full of shit because his estimates of how large the spherical round globe was were way, way too small. Which they were. If he hadn't run into the americas by accident, hed have died at sea like everyone predicted.
>>
>>7650326
I guess we've been reading quite different history books. Have it your way then, i gotta head off to work.
>>
>>7650320

That's a goddamn bullshit myth taught to ameritards. The ancient greeks knew that the Earth was spherical and even figured out how big it was to a decently close amount. It's only the retarded christfags in the European dark ages who didn't know shit.
>>
NASA continues to test the EMdrive.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1440938#msg1440938

>And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...
>>
>>7650326
Historyfag here, this man is correct. Everybody knew the earth was round by then, nobody would fund Columbus because they realized his estimations for the circumference was way too low and he would run out of supplies and die. Spain funded him in the end because I cant remeber why but they totally expected him to not return.
>>
>>7649636
lone inventors have it harder these days because new inventions are too advanced for one person to prototype. The EM drive can only be tested in space. Even with that prototype nobody took Goddard seriously when he said it could make it to outer space, It was the government funded V2 that got people to finally pay attention.
>>
>>7635364
Yahoo Finance, your one stop shop for everything math, physics and science
>>
>>7650502
>>7650524
Allright then, i believe you. I guess my school teachers weren't so knowledgeable in the 80's.
>>
>>7639392
>>
>>7650779
>80s
Please tell me youre not still a student
>>
I shouldn't have to repeat myself:

No piece of technology 'works' until it's in commercial use. Unless someone launches a spacecraft that runs on this trumpet motherfucker, it is not viable.
>>
>>7650915
Hah no, i'm just a blue collar guy enjoying science and wonder on a hobby basis. But still i am kinda perplexed about this apparently false information i received about the history of the world back then.
Sure they told me that nobody really knows what killed the dinosaurs because this was before they discovered chicxulub crater, but dammit, they should have known about who knew about the shape of the Earth at that particular period of time.
>>
>>7651021
the dark ages did some seriously retarded shit to the progression of science anon.
>>
>>7651021
this goes into some of the reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Modern_period
>>
>>7651041
No they....
Nevermind. Never even mind it.
>>
>>7649636
God you are so fucking retarded. Have you seen the force given by the drive? It wouldn't be able to lift from the ground as it is now and needs to be tested in space, which in case you didn't notice is incredibly expensive.
>WHERE'S THE FUNCTIONING PROTOTYPE?!1!!
They've built multiple prototypes, why the fuck do you think we are still discussing this?
>>
>>7650779

School is a propaganda factory.
>>
>>7651021
Merican history education is all I can say. But to be fair the belief that medieval people had no clue the earth was round is an extremely common misconception
>>
>>7641799

You are clearly not at all familiar with physics at all
>>
>>7636016
You could say the same shit except expel propellant and it would still appear the same.

The only difference is you don't see the expelled propellant.
>>
>>7636050
Except people are denying that the laser can be seen.

Plus if you can prove the laser can be seen you now have a way to shine a laser across the surface of a fluid further than would normally be possible. You have a useful phenomenon that can be exploited.

That's why you're a fucking moron.
>>
>>7636310
Theoretical models are unimportant if it works in a reliable way that can be modeled.

You don't need to know why it works if it works. You don't need to know why gunpowder works to produce and use it. It helps, but its not required.
>>
>>7651435

The sad truth is that a large amount of people today are more ignorant than stone-age cavemen who at least had some idea of how the world worked even if it was superficial.
>>
>>7635594
>>7635862
See:
>>7638717
tl;dr: the article is old and incorrect.
>>
>>7636020
At a theoretical 100% efficiency, sure, but thanks to entropy no such thing is possible, so that is truly impossible even if the EM drive is not.
>>
>>7636050
To respond to your simile in a Galilean manner:
"Eppur si vede".

So assuming that yes, the laser can be seen anyway, would you perhaps not argue this option:
>3. A previously unnoticed interaction with some force relating to the Earth is causing the light from the laser to curve.
>>
>>7636697
>layman gtfo
You see, THAT is the attitude that drives people away from science, and into the arms of metaphysics and astrologers.

Well done.

Pat yourself on the back and then go inhale some flourine.
>>
>>7638491
That is a poor analogy. This thing (assuming it works) is most emphatically NOT a "reactionless" drive. It is, however, a propellant-less drive. It does not need reaction-mass the way a rocket does.

IF it actually works, it will likely turn out to use some kind of heretofore-unobserved reaction where it pushes against space-time itself or some such thing, whatever it will be.

I recommend further testing. In vacuum.

Hopefully, they can eventually send a small version up to the ISS and test it there.
>>
>>7640820
>Ten people getting the same result in not enough to rule out millions observing the opposite effect. the conservation of momentum is an established law of modern physics that never been observed to be violated except in this case.

Wouldn't it be more like:
>"Ten people getting the same result in not enough to rule out millions not observing anything at all and trying really hard to say the ten are wrong."
>>
>>7651953
He was using a simile to show how we actually are at such a basic understanding of physics that we should stop making ASSumptions without further testing.
>>
>>7641904
But wait a second- the Pioneer Anomaly.

That was discovered to be caused by non-symmetrical infrared radiation.

Hence, IR (thermal) energy in a vacuum produced thrust.

QED- Heat is capable of producing thrust under the right conditions in vacuum.
>>
>>7643475
>An official NASA kickstarter for a reactionless drive would raise millions.
True, and can you imagine if they did one for a trip to Mars? Especially if donations were tax-deductible?
>>
>>7644733
>This drive violates a lot of the laws of physics.
Funnily enough, if the thing turns out to work, not only will it violate the laws of physics (as we currently know them), but physics is going to scream and beg for more.

So who cares? More testing!
>>
>>7644782
>The patent owners will be undeservedly rich.
>undeservedly

If this works, and finally gets humans going in space for real, Shawyer quite literally deserves to be richer than Bill Gates.
It doesn't even matter that his theories are utter crap- if it turns out to be a real thing, it means he has improved humanity's access to space.
>>
File: Wisdom.png (71 KB, 732x453) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
71 KB, 732x453
>>7648572
>>
>>7649636
>WHERE'S THE FUNCTIONING PROTOTYPE
Being tested by NASA.
You'd be fucking bitching that Goddard is an idiot and his ideas would not work - basically, it's like you going up to Goddard and saying:
>"Hey everybody this liquid-fuelled rocket thing is just a meme guys! Goddard isn't even on the Moon!"

TL;DR- go back to /b/
>>
>>7650933
SO I guess the Saturn V rockets did not work hey?
>>
>>7652742
>You'd be fucking bitching that Goddard is an idiot and his ideas would not work
This is literally what happened. Top scientists argued that rockets would never work in space because there is nothing to react against. Fuck the establishment.
>>
>>7652754
I know. The New York times even had to print a correction to their dismissal of his ideas.... 70 years later.
>>
>>7652754
>nothing to react against
Source? I could see other reasons they would be doubters but that's failing basic Newtonion physics. They would have to know momentum was still conserved in a vacuum.
>>
>>7652806
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/new-york-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space
>>
>>7652806
http://io9.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487
>>
>>7652813
>>7652819
New York Times editors are top scientists?
>>
>>7652840
Remember this was in 1920.

They probably rang the nearest university and got some overworked physics tutor who just wanted off the phone.

I'd bet that as soon as they explained the absolute basics, he dismissed it all as bullshit and hung up.

If we knew who they talked to though, that would be interesting...
>>
>>7652840
>>7652862
Here is the article in the Times:
>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D0DE7D7153EE433A25750C1A9679C946195D6CF

And it is reported here also:
"Social Foundations of Human Space Exploration" By James A. Dator-

New York Times editors are definitively NOT scientists, but their article did kind of put a crimp in Goddard's spirits.

At least a few might have studied science, so it fits right in with this thread and its majority of science students calling the EM drive a waste of time not worth testing because "muh laws of the yuniverse" rubbish.
>>
>>7652806
>Source? I could see other reasons they would be doubters but that's failing basic Newtonion physics. They would have to know momentum was still conserved in a vacuum.
It was the viewpoint of the faculty at the University of Heidelberg to Hermann Oberth's doctoral dissertation in 1922. He later published it the next year as "Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen" (“The Rocket into Interplanetary Space”)

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Hermann-Julius-Oberth
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/oberth.htm
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi515.htm
>>
File: Capture.png (76 KB, 557x666) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
76 KB, 557x666
>>7652916
Huh, that's interesting. Wonder who this Riem guy was.
>>
>>7653028
He seems to have published "Weltenwerden - Eine Kosmogonie" - Prof. Dr. Johannes Riem

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/weltenwerden/author/riem-prof-dr-johannes/

... if of aber natürlich, it is the same man.
>>
>>7649636

Every new idea is shit! We should only stick to old proven ideas that work! Fuck progress!

I can't fucking believe that retards like you are even on /sci/. If everybody was so fucking retarded we would be living in caves to this day.
>>
>>7652754

Fuck the haters. Even when Bohr and Rutherford bought their QM theory out, Bohr had to waste far too many cycles fending off haters including Einstein of all people, who was severely butthurt over the implications of QM. Which to this day are still not accepted by mainstream, despite being experimentally proven.
>>
>>7653220
Interesting. Got a link I can look into this at?
>>
>>7653259

Google "God does not play dice".
>>
File: 1446982917339.jpg (175 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
175 KB, 1920x1080
>>7653194

Call me when that copper piece of crap even makes a shopping cart move across a parking lot.
>>
>>7653333