EmDrive

Oh yeah, apparently it works or whatever

>people being excited about this when we already have antigrav technology

Once you actually witness a UFO in real life you really can't go back to believing NASA memes

Yeah, apparently it works. They haven't tested it in space tho.

>>57605145
k

>>57605056
I heard it runs on time crystals.

>>57605056
It's funny because it's almost literally that troll science image of the guy holding the magnet infront of the magnet on his little pulley trolley.

>>57605369
>Yeah, apparently it works.
Same could be said for cold fusion.
Use one to power the other, perhaps.

You technically generate thrust you you shine light, since photons have mass.

>>57605696
>cold fusion
cold fusion was never reproduced.
This keeps getting reproduced in different labs, no one can figure it out.

>>57605724
>since photons have mass

what

photons are massless

that's like their most fundamental property

The testing method was valid, doesn't mean that it works.

>>57605724
>since photons have mass.
/g/ - smart people

MemeDrive

>>57605843
>>57605863
>they don't know about special relativity

File: yir2015-image002.jpg (44KB, 600x444px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x444px

>>57606035

File: great argument.jpg (46KB, 600x444px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x444px

>>57606095
Wow great argument anon, you sure showed me.

I want the British cripple's opinion on this so I can parrot it online

>>57605145
this, desu.

>>57605729
>no one can figure it out.

The inventor explains it in a paper that any moderately intelligent person with a minimal physics background could understand.

What's fucking with everyone's mind is that nobody can imagine a way for it to work and preserve Newton's third law as it is currently written. We probably could have had production EM drives sooner but too many faggots couldn't get over "muh fucking laws of physics."

There are no "laws" in science. There are human theories and formulas which are abstractions, approximations of physical reality. When you observe something new that "violates" a "law" of physics, you modify the theory.

Same shit as with Newton's law of gravity. It was damn good...genius for the time period and the tools he had...and it's still useful in many situations. But it was ultimately found to be flawed, and a better approximation created by Einstein. Someday we will have an even better approximation than his.

>>57606194
Photons have momentum but have no mass. So yes, that picture is VERY relevant for you.

>>57606603
Photons have no resting mass. Good luck finding a resting photon in the universe.
That picture is in fact VERY relevant to you.

>>57605056
The only thing missing to complete it as a scam, is a conman like Elon Musk to shill it.

>>57606379
>We probably could have had production EM drives sooner but too many faggots couldn't get over "muh fucking laws of physics."

People are skeptical because it seemingly defies our current understanding of physics and that means that if it's actually legit(still not actually proven yet) there's either something wrong with how we're observing it or our current understanding of physics is wrong. The skepticism is perfectly legitimate, obviously anyone who's going to put down money on a test run of it is going to want to make sure that it actually works on paper first.

>>57606642
>be musk
>see all these old ideas that people didnt design because "it'd be stupid expensive and wont reap benifits"
>tricks US government to foot the bill

The only 'smart' thing about elon musk is that he isnt spending his own dime.
His projects (out side of Tesla cars) are retarded

File: tumblr_lza9zskkkX1qgnd4mo1_1280.jpg (55KB, 819x460px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 819x460px

>this thread

>>57606953
lel'd

>>57606953
Impossible. You can't just create fire with nothing.

>>57606681
people are mostly skeptical because the results are barely above measurement error level and it's not even conclusively proven that it's not in fact just a know side effet - not because "muh fucking laws of physics" as another anon pointed out so eloquently. If the results would actually show a couple newtons per kW you can bet your ass that any fucking physics department and propulsion laboratory would jump on that. Nobody gives a shit about the "laws", everybody gives a shit about the money this could make them.

>>57607050
Yes you can where do you think the sun came from??

File: FusionWendelstein-7-X.jpg (43KB, 515x343px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 515x343px

>>57605729
>What is the Wendelstein 7-x
Daily reminder that 2016 is the year that all things previously considered impossible turn real (eg: Perl 6, a meme president, propellantless engine and cold fusion)

>>57606681
>People are skeptical because it seemingly defies our current understanding of physics

But people avoided TESTING the damn thing for years because "muh current understanding of physics."

>and that means that if it's actually legit(still not actually proven yet)

The leaked (published yet?) NASA paper pretty much establishes there is thrust. Unless NASA royally fucked up their testing. Problem with that is everyone else is detecting thrust to.

>there's either something wrong with how we're observing it or our current understanding of physics is wrong.

That latter one.

>The skepticism is perfectly legitimate

Skepticism is legitimate. But the scientific response is to observe. Too many "scientists" today don't want to observe, they just want to discuss "muh laws!" Peer review is a fucking mistake. Money should go towards experimental replication. And results should be published in scientific journals ONLY once an experiment has been independently replicated.

We have multiple replications of thrust. (That's what she said.) If someone can show it fits in Newton's third law, great. But if not then revise the third law.

>>57607169
Cubs win the world series

>>57607169
Why are fusion reactors starting to like demonic?

>>57607152

NASA says they detected the predicted thrust in a vacuum and there are no side effects.

And yes, this was all delayed because for years nobody would take the inventor seriously.

>>57607169
>my body is ready

>>57607218
>NASA says they detected the predicted thrust in a vacuum and there are no side effects.
the Eagleworks has barely started with it, it was only some secondary NASA lab with no equipment that tested it

>>57606379
>>57607193
These posts hit the nail on the head. It's retarded that the general scientific community as a whole has moved into this realm of "our LAWS dictate the universe" and not "the universe dictates our LAWS". Of course, when a theory has worked for a couple of hundred years, you give it a lot of credibility - and there's always room for healthy skepticism. But 95% of scientists just sit around shouting "muh laws" and "muh thermodynamix" and shoot everything down that doesn't agree with their model. A model in which they constantly admit "we hardly understand anything about the universe" and then at the same time shout "bah humbug" at anything that might be outside our current understanding because muh-300-year-old-scientist

File: Soon.jpg (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

>>57607212

>>57607218
>NASA says they detected the predicted thrust in a vacuum and there are no side effects.
that's nice, test in space, I can claim "no side effects" too.

>>57607212
Its design was actually made by a computer for the most efficiency

>>57607286
>ok now put a pentagram in that tube
>but WATSON, why wou...
>do it

>>57607286
Computers are made by the devil.
/g/ is the devil's board.

>>57605145
Considering the definition of UFO, I think most people have seen them.

File: EzdXDFA.jpg (477KB, 2768x1820px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 2768x1820px

>>57607212
there is nothing "demonic" here: electromagnetic fields can be very complex so the design was done by a sophisticated AI for maximum efficiency.

>>57607256
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

>>57607278
>buh...buh...i bet it doesn't work in space!
It's going to work dude.

>>57607323
>tfw the apple I sold for $666.66
>tfw apple's logo is literally the apple given to eve
brb installing TempleOS

>>57607400
It's funny how this is supposed to be the cutting edge of AI design but it looks like a Minecraft build that someone didn't plan out properly

>>57607400
If you squint your eyes, that looks pretty much like a lovecraftian monster.

>>57607426
why are you linking this shit? You're proving my point, link me something from the JPL

>>57607463
>link me something from the JPL
I doubt many people here can read Japanese.

>>57607426
>Although thermal shift was addressed to a degree with this test campaign, FUTURE TESTING EFFORTS SHOULD SEEK TO develop testing approaches that are immune to CG shifts from thermal expansion. As indicated in Sec. II.C.8, a modified Cavendish balance approach could be employed to definitively rule out thermal.

>>57607433
Blame the design of the torus and the way plasma behaves in a magnetic field.

Plasma in a magnetic field likes to twist around. Doing so makes it unstable, and makes it hard for the magnetic coils surrounding it to control it.
What the Stellerator design does is that instead of trying to null out the plasma twisting like the Tokamak design does, it works with it, twisting the torus around in tune with the plasma.

Downside of this though is that the torus ends up with a really fucking wonky shape, and thus all of the external magnetic coils must be custom designed for each segment of the torus to ensure the fields work as intended.
It also requires cryogenically cooled superconducting supermagnets for the coils so they do their job.

Result: Reactor looks really fucking weird.

>Trying to make a propulsion system from an effect so small that scientist aren't sure if results are noise or even above error margin of the measurement.
Even if the effect is real (which is not) there is no way this will ever find any useful application. Reminds me of the real but useless endeavor if trying to extract energy from the Casimir effect.

>>57607167
God.

>>57607712
you idiot, this isn't about making a space ferry to Sirius. If this thing works as advertised it destroys Newtonian physics for good.

but anyway the chinks reported a much higher thrust

File: ijIFM.jpg (642KB, 3826x2387px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 3826x2387px

>>57607562
Pretty interesting shapes there

>>57607167
From compressed matter.

>>57607712
This people don't even understand why they are measuring trust, give them time. If they are able to remove any noise factor and the anomaly is still there then physics all around the globe will try to find some explanation, probably some ad hoc hypothesis in the standard quantum theory, and after more experimentation they will be able to improve the design and produce much more trust.

>>57607504
>predicted thrust
>thermal shift wouldn't match prediction
>thermal shift 99% ruled out any way
>GUYS IT MUST BE THERMAL MUH LAWZ!

>>57607712
>i cant into space propulsion over time: the post

>>57607772
Looks like something Giger would come up with

>>57607562
>It also requires cryogenically cooled superconducting supermagnets for the coils so they do their job.
aren't they essentially coils of superconducters in both designs?

Mate, have you ever talked to a scientist? Most of em would be thrilled to find new physics. They're just also highly skeptical because they have to sift to retarded ideas and false hopes all the time.

>>57605056
thrust to weight ratio in testing is atrocious

File: 1468440645675.jpg (71KB, 395x500px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 395x500px

>>57606379
>>57607267
>The inventor explains it in a paper that any moderately intelligent person with a minimal physics background could understand.
No he doesn't. He only gives his own hypothesis that can't even be proven. He's a fucking engineer who discovered the drive by accident and doesn't even know how it works.

>>57608617
By far most inventions are done by engineers. You don't have to understand something to come up with it.

The only reason why is that scientists are reluctant to try new things. Engineers just try shit and see if it works.

>>57608645
>By far most inventions are done by engineers. You don't have to understand something to come up with it.
I didn't imply otherwise. I'm just saying he's not qualified nor knowledgeable enough to explain how his own invention works.

Does this mean that Half Life 3 will eventually come out?

ITT: retards who don't know that this doesn't mean shit and won't change anything

>>57608645
>By far most inventions are done by engineers. You don't have to understand something to come up with it.

As an engineer, I can say your statement is full of shit. You do have to understand the principles and mathematics behind your invention to create it.

Funny how the key to interstellar travel was a bucket and a microwave all along

>>57605056
>heat air inside a close cone using microwaves
>it generate lift
>call it thrust
>reap all the memes

>>57607562
I like to think that making such an odd reactor will cause the plasma to not twist at all resulting in total failure of the design and back to the drawing board.

>>57608725
Then how was the memEmDrive invented?

>>57608725
The irony of the emdrive is probably lost on you.

File: crying_penguin_by_metalxx69-d37k2nn.png (198KB, 900x1257px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 900x1257px

>>57607169
>2016 is the year that all things previously considered impossible turn real

Still no Year of the Linux Desktop.

> Wai eben lives?

>>57608964
the year of the linux desktop is beyond impossible

>>57605843
Photons are affected by the gravity of black holes, thus they must have mass.

>>57605056
>look mom, I broke the laws of thermodynamics!
next?

File: 1458212571219.png (364KB, 441x524px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 441x524px

>>57609265
>being this retarded

>>57605729
>This keeps getting reproduced in different labs, no one can figure it out.
1. No it doesn't.
2. All reports of any anomalous forces have been close to the threshold of measurement error

These weird “nobody can explain this!” meme phenomena always seem to get weaker and weaker as our measurement precision increases, lmao

>>57607169
What the fuck has a stellarator got to do with the cold fusion meme?

Fucking hell /g/, at least troll in a logically sound way

File: 1474616684215.jpg (610KB, 1280x1912px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1280x1912px

What happens if I stick one in my ass and turn it on?

>>57609706
>1. No it doesn't.
>2. All reports of any anomalous forces have been close to the threshold of measurement error
Your 2nd point contradicts your first. They keep finding an effect ABOVE the threshold of error, no matter how small/

>>57609672
You're all talk and full of shit.

>>57608501
They are

The big difference between stellarators and tokamaks as far as I can tell is that the tokamak induces a magnetic field in the plasma itself, essentially turning the plasma into its own magnet that traps itself.

But apparently this is not working as well as anticipated because it's too hard to control and keep stable, so interest in the stellarator design has renewed (which does not require cooperation from the plasma, but instead builds all the necessary confinement into the magnet design itself)

Please correct me if I'm wrong

>>57607218
>NASA says they detected the predicted thrust in a vacuum and there are no side effects.
Sounds like horse shit without a source.

Friendly reminder that a reactionless drive would basically allow any idiot with a solar panel and a brick to destroy the earth. When you violate the third law of thermodynamics, all sorts of completely weird and fucked up things happen to the universe.

>>57609762
You'd microwave your colon.

>>57609809
>When you violate the third law of thermodynamics, all sorts of completely weird and fucked up things happen to the universe.

I can confirm that. You violated the third law of thermodynamics the moment you were born and now Trump is the president of the united states.

>>57609762
You'd jump two weeks into the future.
Just in time for your birthday Asuka-chan.

>>57609809
>Sounds like horse shit without a source.
You can read the entire paper if you like.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

>>57609809
reminder that our "laws" of physics are not the definition of reality, but formulas that match reality under the conditions we've been able to experiment with, and therefore any given law in the history of ever could be incomplete and invalid in certain circumstances

>>57609809
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published

The emdrive is pulling energy from an alternate dimension, and once the aliens there notice, they'll blow ours up. Cheers.

>>57609767
>Your 2nd point contradicts your first. They keep finding an effect ABOVE the threshold of error, no matter how small/
Here's your reply

>>57607496
>anime website

>>57608617
>t. Hasn't Read the Paper

>>57609961
Who are you quoting?

File: interstellar-movie.jpg (688KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 2000x1500px

>>57608731
More like interplanetary. For interstellar we really need to find a way to manipulate gravity (or some other way to warp space) to cheat light speed.

>>57609672
Photons are typically referred to as massless when thinking about them from a particle perspective. Wave-particle duality threw that on it's head though and special relatively dictates that energy and mass are equivalent. It doesn't make sense but in short yes they do have mass. Theoretically, their rest mass is 0 but good luck ever getting a photon at rest. Funnily enough, the light from the sun actually exhibits an incredibly fucking small force on the Earth pushing it away.

>>57609265
The gravity of black holes warps space time itself, the protons move in a straight line through warped space.

>>57610020
MOMENTUUUM NOT MASS

>>57608737
>heat air
>in a vacuum
>/g/ education

>>57609638
Jesus if you're going to cry MUH LAWZ at least cite the correct fucking law. Hint: it's the third one from a guy whose name starts with N and ends with ewton.

>>57609809
>can't be true because muh third law of thermodynamics
>"The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero."
>having anything to do with the em drive
Don't talk until you have some remote idea of what you're talking about.

>>57609972
>Who are you quoting?

I'm pointing out that this faggot >>57608617 doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is /g/ and it's worse then trying to debate dinosaur bones with a YEC.

>>57609878
>>57609888
>claiming to measure forces in the μN range, well within the realm of error due to dozens and dozens of different environmental considerations
I find it far more likely to assume there's some error source they haven't accounted for, than I find it likely to assum all of physics for the past few hundred years is about to get shattered.

If this was true then why don't they scale it up to the range where it would produce an actually measurable force?

>>57608964
2016 has seen Linux above 2% market share for like 4 months in a row now. The year of the linux desktop is among us.

>>57610043
>Don't talk until you have some remote idea of what you're talking about.
Look up burnside's law

>>57610042
0 resting mass, not 0 relativistic mass.

>>57610054
more like bumsides law lol

>>57610042
MOMENTUM DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT MASS

>>57610101
Are you actually stupid enough to say photons dont have momentum?

File: 1454780779511.jpg (190KB, 640x582px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 640x582px

>>57610043
>I'm pointing out that this faggot >>57608617(You) doesn't know what he's talking about.
Right. Now mind explaining HOW I don't know what I'm talking about? Or are you just retarded enough to take a high school level """explanation""" filled with holes as credible and authoritative? You implied you read his paper. So give me something from the fucking paper that will convince people you're not full of shit instead of hurling one-liner insults around.

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-20 at 7.19.24 PM.png (33KB, 665x125px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 665x125px

>>57610054

>>57610200
Two long posts from you and not one specific critique of the actual paper itself. Just lots of meaningless rhetoric.

Go away.

>>57610220
>still can't cite ANYTHING from the paper itself
So that settles it. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and most probably haven't read the paper yourself and don't want to admit it. Fuck off.

>long
Jesus christ.

>>57610182
Photons wouldn't have momentum if they didn't have mass.

File: 1455673601599.jpg (294KB, 619x1000px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 619x1000px

test

>>57610318
>>57610318
Jesus fucking Christ I hope you're trolling and aren't actually living with that brain.

BIG MEATY JOULES

>>57610259
>projection: the post

You really look like an idiot right now. But heh, post another cat photo to be snarky.

>teh inventor is just a fucking engineer
>t. Never Invented Anything

Can an emdrive replace rockets to get out of earth? Note: I'm talking if the tech is fully developed.

>>57610829
Pretty sure it would need to get started in a weightless environment to gain any kind of traction

The whole point is the thrust is minuscule, but because there's no propellant leaving it, it can thrust as long as it needs to

>>57610364
You're the retard.

Does it count as a UFO if I don't know the exact genus of the bird I see?

>>57610318
λ = h/mv

It 'works' because it uses the photons' relativistic mass (i.e. the mass calculated with E/c^2).

>>57611261
That just proves it does have mass when not as rest, which they never are.

>>57610829
>Note: I'm talking if the tech is fully developed.
We don't know how much it can be developed. The theoretical basis is poorly understood. It's not like an internal combustion engine where we can look at thermodynamics and say "a perfect engine would be x% efficient".

That said, the guy who originally came up with the idea says he's working on a version that should make hundreds of newtons of force from one kilowatt instead of the 1.2 mN they made at NASA.

>>57611076
for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGcvxg7jJTs

>>57610829
Nobody knows, but based on the current measurements it would provide several times less thrust than ion drives, which themselves are many many orders of magnitude away from actually being able to take off from earth under their own weight, let alone the weight of a rocket.

>>57610932
>The whole point is the thrust is minuscule, but because there's no propellant leaving it, it can thrust as long as it needs to
And as long as you can generate electricity. Which requires the use of onboard fuel (defeating the point) or solar panels (at which point you might as well use a solar sail)

>>57612364
Given enough time it can reach speeds much higher than anything we currently have, a solar sail isn't comparable, and throwing solar cells + small battery onboard is pretty trivial

>>57612364
>onboard fuel
>solar panels

You forgot nuclear at which point this thing can propel itself to nearby stars.

>>57612364
>at which point you might as well use a solar sail
Solar sails produce maybe 1% of the thrust that this does.

>>57612393
>>57612443
Current-generation ion drives can already last decades on tiny amounts of fuel, and provide orders of magnitude more thrust per watt than the EmDrive claims

Even assuming they work, you'd need missions lasting hundreds of years to make any benefit of the better scaling, and you also wouldn't be able to get anywhere anytime soon since you'd need to accelerate for years to get any tangible speed out of them.

Also, it's not like the concept hasn't been explored before - there are actual, real, proven space engines which convert electricity into acceleration while consuming no additional fuel; they're called photon drives. The problem is the same - they're far too weak for them to every be worth it on realistic timescales, so you're better off putting in a few grams of xenon and using an ion engine.

>>57605724
the problem with the EM drive is that the light isn't traveling away from the source like a flashlight's light, it is bouncing around in a cone like thing so the momentum should cancel itself out and be 0 net acceleration. Photon thrusters are real and actually proven to work, but they take millions of watts to produce 1N of force. The EM drive is promising to be many times more efficient.

>>57612458
An ideal solar sail at 1 AU from the sun produces about 9 μN/m^2 (typically at 90% efficiency or so, so more like 8).

For a typical 10-30 m^2 solar sail that translates to about 100-200 μN of thrust.

Assume you used all of this area for solar panels instead and had them power an EmDrive, you'd gain around 200 W of power from those (assuming 20% efficiency and ~1 kW/m^2 irradiation at 1 AU) which would translate to about the same thrust based on the measurements we have so far.

(Of course, it's much cheaper to deploy a large solar sail and get it into orbit than it is for solar cells, and it also weights far more so your acceleration will be significantly lower)

(Also, if you fed those 200 W into a current-gen xenon ion drive instead you'd get something like 8000 μN of thrust)

>>57607772
that's fucking hot

>>57612494
>wall of text
>before anyone knows what max thrust could potentially be

Current horses can travel many days just by feeding off grasses found on the trail. Even assuming the internal combustion engine would work, you'd need special paths with hundreds of fueling stations to power them. So you're better off putting a saddle on a horse.

>>57612981
A perfectly valid criticism. Until you can prove or even begin to suspect that an internal combustion engine could even perform within 5 orders of magnitude of a horse, there is no reason to take the concept seriously.

Establish a working theory first, then calculate a theoretical performance, then invest time to build and test a prototype.

Don't do it the other way around.

>>57607383
You know what I mean bruv

The amount of bullshit in this thread is astonishing.

1. No this does not break the laws of thermodynamics
2. No this does not break the laws of conservation of momentum
3. No this is not a "reactionless drive", reactionless drives are impossible. This is a propellantless drive. These are the words of the inventor himself.
4. It can entirely be explained with classical physics, no quantum stuff needed.

Next time actually look up what the the inventor himself said, instead of getting your info from popsci articles and anonymous Taiwanese puppetshow discussion sites.

>>57613179
>1. No this does not break the laws of thermodynamics
Yes it does. Reactionless drives allow you to trivially create perpetual motion devices and more fun things.

It breaks everything from general and special relativity to newton's laws to thermodynamics.

>>57613179
>This is a propellantless drive.
Then what's the propellant?

>>57605729
cold fusion has been reproduced many times, it's only not accepted because there isn't a consistent theory to explain the results and """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""skeptics""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" are fucking retarded luddites

>>57613207
But it isn't a reactionless drive. It's a propellantless drive.

>>57613211
I'm on my phone atm. The inventor has several videos on YouTube explaining how it works.

>>57613084
t. retard who doesn't know how science progresses

you try it and see what fucking happens, your theory is 100% worthless until validated in reality

File: tintin-question-mark.jpg (21KB, 226x270px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 226x270px

>>57613231
>it's not a reactionless drive it just works without reaction mass

>it's not an ether it just is the medium of gravity

gotta love these fucking retards trying to weasel word their way out of the obvious

If this is proven to be correct. Will there be a way to scale this? Will flying cars be a thing?

>>57613265
Inventor said a superconducting model could lift cars.

>>57613265
it's a novelty, like gyros losing weight. Interesting but not efficient at all. Actual reactionless propulsion will come from scalar waves.

File: 4598042_1960camper.jpg (32KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x398px

>>57613265
You know those large dreadnoughts from space video games, they will patrol our skies, like common place.

>>57613218
>cold fusion has been reproduced many times,
no

File: picard-durr[1].jpg (15KB, 300x326px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x326px

>>57613301
>nuh uh

quality 4chan™ argumentation right there

>>57613240
>t. retard who doesn't know how science progresses
Every single advancement to date in the field of space propulsion has been predated by predictions and theoretical models.

Until you can come up with a consistent and working theory for why an EM drive should even work and how it operates, good luck trying to build a working drive out of it.

File: IMG_1006.jpg (33KB, 280x350px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 280x350px

>>57613315
(You)

>>57613231
>But it isn't a reactionless drive. It's a propellantless drive.
The propellant is what provides the reaction force. That's literally what the term means (“to propel” here means “to shoot out”, so the reaction you get from newton's third law pushes you forwards)

If it's propellantless, then it's reactionless. Simple as that.

>I'm on my phone atm.
Ah yes, the shitty troll reveals himself as a phoneposter. All phone posters should be fucking gassed, honestly.

>>57613308
>>57613324
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Go prove it works, then come back. Seriously. There's a neverending torrent of this pseudoscientific perpetual motion garbage. People just keep funding it year after year after year, wasting their money on memes like cold fusion, EM drives, and other promises for sci-fi utopia - because it's a cheap investment scam.

As long as visionary idiots buy into it, clever tricksters will continue “selling” it.

If you want to give your money to this nonsense, then feel free to throw it out your window. I'm not stopping you. But you might as well fund research based on actual science, not science fiction.

In the end, it's your decision. Just my 2 c ents.

>>57613328
Yet a function can be derived to calculate the thrust using only classical physics.

And said function accurately predicted the thrust measured in the new nasa peer reviewed paper.

;^)

This is getting silly. Here is Scott Manly on the subject for all the 12 year old polsters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGcvxg7jJTs

Nothing has been conclusively proven yet, the paper has faced allot of criticism, much of which needs to be addressed before any of this is taken seriously. This might be shocking to some but not everything published in peer reviewed papers is bomb proof.

>>57607193
>>57607267
If we tried everyone's crackpot ideas for reactionless drives, perpetual motion machines, cold fusion, time travel etc there would be no funding for experiments that actually look like they might work. Everyone in the scientific community knows that the universe is under no obligations to behave how we expect, you are not some savant with special ideas. The laws just describe what we have always seen, they change slowly because we have to be careful and absolutely certain that we are not mistaken. If the resonance drive actually works then the universe is behaving in a manner we have not observed before hence the healthy skepticism. You fuckers are probably too young to remember the faster than light neutrinos a few years ago, want to know what happened? Experimental error and media hype.

Protip, if you judge the truth of something by what alex jones and the meme media says you are probably a retard.
If you have to invent reasons for experts to lie to you in order to float your ridiculous conspiracy theories you are probably a retard.
If you have to spout your ridiculous shit to validate yourself and feel special you are probably a retard.

>>57613388
[citation needed]

>>57607169
>What is the Wendelstein 7-x
A nuclear fusion reactor. Which is a completely different (yet somewhat related) concept to a cold fusion reactor. As far as we know, nuclear fusion takes place at temperatures of millions of Kelvins. Cold fusion is fusion that takes place at room temperature and Wendelstein 7-X wasn't built for that purpose. Quite the contrary, it was built to contain superhot plasma.

>>57613416
Literally go read the paper faggot.

>>57613388
This actively contradicts the NASA paper. The fucking title even calls it “anomalous thrust”. Do you know the definition of the word ‘anomalous’?

It means “unexplained by theory”. Meaning there's no theory to back it up. And based on the size of the measured force it's so close to measurement error that it could be basically any form of interference that simply hasn't been accounted for.

Ultra-precise measurements like these basically involve figuring out and accounting for 10-20 different sources of errors and removing them all from the signal. That's how stuff like LIGO work, and also how stuff like mass measurements in the LHC works - by subtracting errors until what's left is a signal.

If you forget to subtract some error, you're measuring an anomalous paper. (And by the way, the other two reports besides the NASA paper of having “measured” thrust from an EM drive were since retracted, with the cause of both measured thrusts being attributed to experimental/measurement error instead)

I fully expect to see the same happen to NASA's paper in the near future. If you're skeptical of that claim, you're welcome to wait and see.

By the way, anybody remember that time CERN announced neutrinos were faster than light?

>>57613445
>If you forget to subtract some error, you're measuring an anomalous paper.
anomalous signal*

>>57613445

I suggest you read the article.

This paper has been peer reviewed,

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published

>By the way, anybody remember that time CERN announced neutrinos were faster than light?

Refuted very quickly.

The EM Drive has been in development since 1999. It's a different kettle of fish.

>>57607400
how the fuck do you build something like this? those are some complex 3d shapes.

File: dib.png (16KB, 550x404px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 550x404px

>>57613368

>>57613445
>LIGO
>working

kek

Everyone ITT is fucking retarded.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1280x720px

>>57613410
I think someone here forgot to take his supermale vitality.

>>57613567

The EM Drive works. It's been stress tested by NASA's Eagleworks anf they've published a peer reviewed paper.

Problem?

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published

>>57613567
reddit babby mad that his usual shilling tactics don't work on 4chan

>>57613480
>This paper has been peer reviewed,
So was the CERN paper, and others discussing the phenomenon, which at the time, was also called “anomalous”.

“peer review” doesn't mean independent verification of the results, by the way. It just means that there doesn't appear to be an issue with the article itself and the way it presents itself. For example, the article fully realized that it could be the result of measurement error. It's not trying to come up with an explanation, it's just documenting measurement results.

Peer reviewing that is easy, because all they're doing is documenting their experiment and what they measured. (Seriously, go read it. They don't propose any new physics that would actually explain this effect, assuming it existed)

It doesn't mean jackshit except that NASA was transparent about the procedure.

>Refuted very quickly.
Yes, and so will this be.

>The EM Drive has been in development since 1999. It's a different kettle of fish.
Yep, and so has my cold fusion based perpetual motion machine. Just give me a few decades more of your investment money and I swear I'll be able to make it commercially viable!

>>57613207
>it breaks muh lawz!

* Radiation pressure varies with propagation speed.
* Waveguide can alter propagation speed of wave traveling within.
* Create waveguide where electromagnetic radiation hits end A at c but hits end B at <c as it bounces back and forth.
* THRUST!

http://emdrive.com/principle.html

>>57613315
>t. Can't Read Papers

>>57613328
>If it's propellantless, then it's reactionless. Simple as that.
>t. Can't Into Radiation Pressure

I guess solar sails don't work either.

>>57613410
>Everyone in the scientific community knows that the universe is under no obligations to behave how we expect

This is delicious coming from someone who hand waves every experiment which shows the predicted thrust because he expects the universe to behave a certain way.

>alex jones

The /g/ version of Godwin's Law appears.

>>57613636
>>Refuted very quickly.
>Yes, and so will this be.

Trump is going to lose guys. You just wait and see!

>>57613639
radiation pressure isn't a mechanical force and was initially rejected on the same grounds that massless particles shouldn't exert a force

>>57613639
>I guess solar sails don't work either.
Solar sells are not closed systems. The conservation of momentum does not hold for open systems, just closed ones.

In the case of solar sails, they work by bouncing photons off the sails which come from the sun (i.e. the spacecraft is an open system).

What the EM Drive is claiming to do is being a closed-system reactionless drive, which is complete bullshit.

>>57613639
>every experiment
Is there actually more than the single NASA one which hasn't been retracted by the experimentors due to measurement error yet?

You make it sound like this has been independently verified across the globe, which is exactly what the proponents of the scam want you to believe, but it simply isn't true.

>>57613652
conservation laws are not universal laws, they are often misapplied by idiots who don't know this

>>57613647
Ah, I knew it. So >>>/pol/ is behind this shitposting as well.

Wait, why is this even on /g/ instead of /sci/? Don't you usually bait people with your perpetual motion machines there?

>>57613661
how is it a scam exactly? nobody is making money on this shit

now the multibillion dollar CERN facilities on the other hand....

>>57613639
>* Radiation pressure varies with propagation speed.
>* Waveguide can alter propagation speed of wave traveling within.
>* Create waveguide where electromagnetic radiation hits end A at c but hits end B at <c as it bounces back and forth.
>* THRUST!
Reminds me of those troll science comics with magnets

>>57613566
LIGO has produced consistent and independent measurements in multiple locations of black hole merger events that perfectly match the signature predicted by the associated theory.

This does not even have an associated theory, let alone consistently measured results.

>>57613636
>“peer review” doesn't mean independent verification of the results,

It's been verified by by independent researchers.

http://www.sciencealert.com/independent-scientists-confirm-that-the-impossible-em-drive-produces-thrust

File: yuishrug.jpg (70KB, 810x780px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 810x780px

>>57613674
ligo hasn't even published their methods, just trust us :^)

>this is what passes for "independent" these days

now shoo, shill

>>57613652
>What the EM Drive is claiming to do is being a closed-system reactionless drive, which is complete bullshit.

Eagleworks isn't "claiming" anything. They have proven the EM Drive works, have verified it independently, and published a paper on the subject.

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published

>>57613680
Sigh, I'll click on your pop sci clickbait

>The drive is so exciting because it produces huge amounts of propulsion that could theoretically blast us to Mars in just 70 days, without the need for heavy and expensive rocket fuel. Instead, it's apparently propelled forward by microwaves bouncing back and forth inside an enclosed chamber, and this is what makes the drive so powerful, and at the same time so controversial.
Fucking hell. We're talking about the same drive that is claimed to generate only a few μN of thrust, right?

They can't even get the basic facts straight. Closing the article, I guess. Next time try linking me a website that isn't full of bullshit.

>>57613693
>avoids the subject of the article

>>57613692
it's standard pseudoskeptic shaming lingo

the opposition always has "claims" which are "touted", regardless of the facts

>>57613693
>pop sci clickbait

How about Aerospace Research Central?

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

>>57613701
Sorry, I simply can't be bothered to read on. Waste of my time.

>>57613692
>proven
It'll be proven when it flies on a spacecraft and works as a main engine, m8

>>57613647
Hello /pol/; just so you know, the laws of physics are not dictated by popular opinion.

While your psyop and shilling tactics might work for getting a president voted, they will not work for getting a perpetual motion machine to work.

So please stop trying. Might as well try and convince the scientific community that the earth is flat for all the good it will do you.

>>57613752

It works. It's been indepentently verified and a peer reviewed paper been published.

>when it flies on a spacecraft and works as a main engine, m8

The EM Drive is about to under go space trials:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

>>57613762
>the laws of physics are not dictated by popular opinion.
thast's rich coming from a consensuscuck

>>57613797

Have you ever heard of "evidence" and "reasoning"?

File: its-magic-i-aint-gotta-explain-shit2.jpg (79KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 720x479px

>meme drive

>>57613814
no. what about it?

>>57613814
yeah and the evidence and reasoning shows the EM drive works

but hey as long as you can fit in that little detail can safely be ignored

>>57613797
>I'll just call him cuck, that will win me the discussion
>>>/pol/

time to abandon thread

>>57613824
>yeah and the evidence and reasoning shows the EM drive works

Indeed.

>>57613829
you won't be missed, cuck

>>57613821

Unfortunately, it works...

I'll be interested to see if there is reasonable thrust in a container without any loss of mass.

The next version shouldn't be in space at all, it should be one optimized for speed and long run-time. (so, cooling the engine)
This way we can measure if there is or isn't any loss of mass somewhere.

If there is no loss, then you go to space to test for it working worse or better.

If it does work still, there is a very high probability the drive does indeed work, in which case satellites just became a lot fucking easier to build.

>>57613824
I don't want to rain on your parade or anything but three teams have tried the experiment, one found nothing, another claimed to find a measurable result and then retracted it. The third has just come forward stating they have found a measurable result.... Evidence and reasoning shows that more experiments need to be run and that we should all be skeptical until the experiment is independently verified by a few other teams or the effects described in the paper have been explained in a manner consistent with our current understanding of how the universe works.
>>57613639
You don't get to say everything about what we know is wrong because of one suspect experiment.
>>57613667
meme media is making money off of shitty articles like this one: >>57613680
and all you retarded little poll minions run around shitposting on other boards which seems to be as good as monetary profit for you.

>>57613962
>I don't want to rain on your parade

Your information is ten years out of date.

The EM Drive has been independently verified.

> in a manner consistent with our current understanding of how the universe works.

The science behind the EM Drive can be explained with quantum theories proposed in the middle of the last century.

>meme media is making money off of shitty articles

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics isn't "meme media".

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

I'm sorry but where the FUCK are my promised room temperature superconductors?

>>57613540
Each part has to be custom made. It's why Stellarator designs haven't been popular; expensive as shit to build.

>>57613962
yeah clicking on links is sooo expensive, what a scam

kys

>>57614044
Cool down your room to -200 degrees.

>>57613962
If you're using adblocker you're stealing bandwidth and they lose money.

>>57614044
apparently it works for a splitsecond if you bombard it with intense microwaves

File: ayyy.jpg (84KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x640px

>>57614023
AYYY LMAO

>>57606379
>We probably could have had production EM drives sooner but too many faggots couldn't get over "muh fucking laws of physics."


These people always annoy the shit out of me.
Yeah, if something violates the currently established laws of nature you better check again and again to ensure that you are really observing it and it's not just some measurement error.

But if it repeatedly shows up in your results, across multiple groups, it is much more reasonable to assume that the established laws are incomplete than to keep shouting "m-muh laws".

Planck was right.

t. Chemist

>>57609888
>implying it isn't just pulling force from the mirror dimension where another EM Drive thrusts into the opposite direction.

you're all fucking stupid, NASA didn't say the fucking engine work
The engine passed the peer review, which evaluate whether or not the testing procedures are correct.
SO the tests are done properly, doesn't mean that the engine fucking work you niggers
I can't believe how stupid people are. Fucking normie sciences website already saying the engine works, i wonder if le nigger science man said so too
fucking hell

>>57614210
>t. didn't read the paper

>>57605145
/x/ pls go

>>57614210
>tests show it works
>review affirm the validity of tests

>that doesn't mean it works :^)

???

>>57614023
>The EM Drive has been independently verified.
It hasn't been independently verified by anyone, an article has passed peer review. That's not the same thing.

>The science behind the EM Drive can be explained with quantum theories proposed in the middle of the last century.
Except it can't. There are some vague, handwaving explanations involving a wake in the quantum fluctuations of a vacuum but this is dubious at best.

>The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics isn't "meme media".
You fucking idiot I never said they were. The article I gave as an example was claiming(amidst a plague of adverts) that this wonderful new technology was going to carry us to mars in under 70 days, probably cure cancer while providing every household with domesticated, genetically engineered cat girls. The AAA is just doing it's job: publishing peer reviewed articles.

>>57614055
>What is add revenue? What is clickbait? How does the internet work? Why am I such an edgy 12 year old?

>>57614242
Don't bother answering m8, they don't know what a peer review is

>>57614221
>>57614231

>>57614074
Sounds like a typical winter where I live

>>57607400
wasnt an AI, it was a super computer which was just doing some physics simulations.

also, keep in mind that its been being built for the past 10 years. if we did the simulation now, it would have taken much less time and been more accurate

>>57614316
I remember NASA using a genetic evolution algorithm to design an antenna that would do the best job for a given task, the results were very interesting

>>57614133
#whoa

What if the EM drive doesn't suck in space and spit it out the other end

>>57614369
That's why they're sending one to test it

>>57613540
>>57614049
I wonder if additive manufacturing would ever be able to help here

3D printing fusion reactors when?

>>57614422
>3D printing fusion reactors when?
I'm sure it's really easy to 3d print titanium and all the other exotic materials that go into a reactor.

>>57614422
Well if the reactor actually work they can improve the design and setup a proper factory to mass produce the pieces, no need for 3D printers
3D printers are good for prototyping, although I think spaceX 3D printed their raptor engine and that's fucking impressive considering how much pressure and thrust this little fucker pulls out

>>57614438
>Raptor
Not sure about raptor but their superdraco engines on the dragon v2 capsule are.

>>57614438
>>57614460
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D-printed_spacecraft

what the actual fuck. 3D printing always finds ways to surprise me

>>57614460
Just checked to wiki page, most of the raptor component are 3D printed, impressive

I don't get it. If you send EM waves out the back of your spacecraft, you get thrust. Why would containing the radiation in a closed system generate any more?

>>57614587
If we knew it theoretical physicists wouldn't be on suicide watch right now.

That is the biggest mystery of them all

>>57607728
You can't create God from nothing.

>>57607400
wtf there is a taped-up cardboard box on it

>>57614587
leaks

>>57605056
Nope, this is copper sheeting with a bunch of random screws everywhere

>>57605121
It... dont.

>>57605145
sure now tell me about nazi ufo technology discovered by pharoe, also um viking circle forts.

>>57605724
>>57605843
Photon propulsion: INCOMING!!
(attaches lasers to the top of his car, fires all torpedoes, nothing happens)

>>57614479
It's also being used to 3D print cellular parts too.
Harder to do.
But even regular printers can print bio-films and such.

This is why ink is so damn expensive. It is used to offset the insane complexity that goes in to printers now. They are so stupidly precise.
Way more precise than a typical office needs, but the science industries is where they are mainly aiming for these days anyway.

>>57614587
There are a few theories.
1) melting the actual engine itself, causing layers of atoms to be shed over time

2) The radiation is building up inside and bouncing OFF space itself. It may be that when there is so much EM radiation in a single spot, of high enough density, it begins bouncing off particle pairs. If this is true, we might be able to take advantage of that. There are other groups independently working on getting energy from this.
There is also a much scarier scenario this introduces, and that is that space, the universe itself, is not in its lowest energy state. That means that at any time, the universe could jump to a lower energy state, absolutely annihilating the universe along with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

3) There is a new form of radiation we haven't discovered yet, Unruh radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect#Unruh_radiation

It is most likely 1. But if it is 2 or 3, there is a shitload of new physics to go with them.

>>57615448
Oh actually, there is a nice list here of more possibilities that goes in to the basics behind what they could mean if true.

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

>>57615514
my cavity resonantes when I get thrusted too

>>57615520
I resonated so hard I

>>57607169
W7-x is actually hot fusion with a fancier magnetic containment than your typical tokamak.

But yeah, it's operational.

>>57605507
Is this a proof of meme magic?

>>57615448
>If a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, then existing particles and forces would no longer arise as they do in the universe's present state. Different particles or forces would arise from (and be shaped by) whatever new quantum states arose. The world we know depends upon these particles and forces, so if this happened, everything around us, fromsubatomic particlestogalaxies, and all fundamental forces, would be reconstituted into new fundamental particles and forces and structures. The universe would lose all of its present structures and become inhabited by new ones

Spoopy. Sound like the ending of some sci-fi manga.

File: 1389560863862.png (113KB, 334x389px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 334x389px

>people still think the vacuum isn't a medium
Now we found the propeller.

>>57616313
this isn't vacuum related as such

>>57616808
it's the aether

>>57615407
>>57605843
>>57606035
fucking retarded, photons have no rest mass but carry momentum, p = hbar * f

EM drive allegedly created 1000x the amount of thrust expected by a photon thruster. photon thrusters aren't new, it's used in a way in light sails.

>>57616867
no it's microwaves

>>57616877
The bouncing of microwaves propels itself along the aether.

>>57606603
I'm a pleb, so explain to me like I'm an idiot:
1. If photons have no mass
2. Electrons have mass
3. Photons can become electrons
4. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed

Which of these is wrong?

>>57617087
all of them

>>57605145
OK Dr manhattan

File: kek.gif (12KB, 317x368px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 317x368px

>>57607323
Oh, you guys don't know?
>English scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989. He wrote the first web browser computer programme in 1990 while employed at CERN in Switzerland.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEK
>KEK is a Japanese organization whose purpose is to operate the largest particle physics laboratory in Japan.
>KEK hosted the first web site in Japan on September 30, 1992.
The internet as we know it was brought to life by men involved in particle-physics research. It is entirely possible that they unwittingly unleashed extra-dimensional entities into the world who used them to create a memetic human mind-network through which they can exert influence on our reality.

>>57615636
Yes

>>57615514
That list is actually the sanest discussion of this topic that I have come across so far. Thanks for linking it

>>57614242
>It hasn't been independently verified by anyone

Oh yes it has. NASA's Eagleworks is the third independent varification. The original EM Drive was developed by a British scientist in 1999. NASA is confirming his findings.

>>57617087
>4. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed
Energy can't be created or destroyed.

Electrons are made by a pair of (massless) photons, where energy gets converted to mass.

>>57617087
>Photons can become electrons
Where an earth did you hear that?

>>57617333
Did I fucking stutter or is your reading comprehension that bad?
Three teams have built a device, the first had inconclusive results, the second retracted theirs and the third have just had a paper with their results pass peer review. That is not independent verification, whatever the memes you subscribe to say.

>>57617863
>Did I fucking stutter or is your reading comprehension that bad?

It's apparent you are misinformed.

NASA has verified the findings of British scientist Roger Shawyer. NASA got involved after an American scientist, Guido Fetta, replicated Shawyers drive and made positive thrust measurements. A Chinese team has also provided verification.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

I'm really sorry if this upsets you.

File: blackhole.png (143KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1920x1080px

>>57606603
momentum is mass x velocity.
>0kg * 300,000 km/s = 0 kg km/s
What are you even talking about?

A lot of people ITT need to read the lab reports. They talk about sources of error and uncertainty (the sum of which is still smaller than the apparent thrust by a factor of THREE orders of magnitude).

>>57607496
Nani sore? This place has Americans that know Japanese better than English.

>>57618431
Reading the lab reports doesn't do any good if you're scientifically illiterate. Say for example if you use Newtonian physics to describe particles traveling at relativistic speeds.

>>57618431
Here's your (You)

ITT: No one knows what they're talking about, but they sure as hell won't shut up

>>57618693

I do.

The drive has been undergoing tests since 1999. The measurements recorded in the tests have been replicated multiple times by independent teams around the World. NASA's Eagleworks have deployed the resources of the World's leading space agency to stress test the device in order to eliminate any sources that might influence results. They're confident they've achieved this, so they've submitted a paper for peer review.

Simples.

>>57619088
That's horribly biased, but not blatantly wrong.

>>57619103
>That's horribly biased,

Er.. I've just stated facts.

>>57619138
You've only stated facts that support your point of view, and the way you're presenting those facts is far from neutral.

You should try to honestly look at both sides, instead of only selecting the information that supports what you already believe.

>>57613652
http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/swimming_through_empty_space

You can also swim through space.

>>57618431
>Newtonian physics
kek

>>57619204
How about you post those facts or shut the fuck up.

Multiple teams have readings on this damn monstrosity now.
Significant readings. 2 well above the noise level.

Could it still be something simpler that we haven't measured before, such as the surface being radiated off in some new unknown mechanism? Sure it could.

Could it be entirely new type of radiation, such as unruh radiation? Sure it could.

Could it be a whole new set of physics, or a rewrite of physics on stuff already conjectured?
Sure it can. We already know free-space has particles popping in and out of existence constantly.
We have no proof of their energy level relative to the "base energy" level of the universe. We have no proof if they can be interacted with or not.
We don't even know for sure if they can steal mass from blackholes via Hawking radiation.

We simply do not know.
But what I do know for sure is people that cling on to things for no reason other than blind faith are not scientists.

>>57608673
>HL3 released on December
>2016 best year of all years

Also, reminder that once you get spaceborne thrust/weight ratio doesn't matter anymore.

>>57619204
>You've only stated facts that support your point of view

Er... wat?

1. EM Drive tested.
2. Replicted by independent teams.
3. Stress tested by NASA.
4. Results released for peer review.

> information that supports what you already believe.

Belief? What I stated are simple facts.

>You should try to honestly look at both sides,

What "other side"? The side that doesn't use facts?

File: wpid-wp-1430231494692.jpg (64KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 620x400px

>>57607272
Came here to meme this.

>>57605056
When a man tries to sell something before proving it works it's a 100% scam. It has happened before, will happen, and is happening right now. Even if there are "evidences". The problem isn't even the conservation laws(which aren't postulated by the way - they are derived from symmetries, like the majority of the fundamental laws), it's just emdrive matches all the other "sensational" scams pattern.

>>57619522
So you are ignoring the peer reviewed NASA paper.

>>57614710
yea you obviously can otherwise why does God exist?

Atheists: 0
Christians: 1

>>57619534
Yes. Just wait and see.

Put it in space, flick the switch, see if it goes anywhere. By now there's at least sufficient "might be actually true" evidence to justify sending one up.

>>57619559
It's already been released

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.B36120

File: .jpg (13KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 235x235px

Haven't seen anything on the only news site I trust, so it must be shit.

>>57610046
Because that'd cost money

YOu do a small test first, then a bigger one, then a bigger one etc.

>>57605056
Propellant-less drive triggers me.

>>57619579
Wait and see for it to turn out a scam. His setup was flawed and replicating it won't really prove anything.

>>57619636
>His setup was flawed

NASA's Eaglework's "setup was flawed"...

Yeah, I guess NASA aren't very good at experiments and space and shit...

>>57619593
What site.

File: .png (366KB, 437x500px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 437x500px

>>57619756
http://phys.org

>>57617239
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEK
>Kō Enerugī Kasokuki Kenkyū Kikō
>KEKKK
>KKK
>Pepe is called "the racist Trump frog"
Guys, meme magic has to stop. One moment we'll be meming the election in France, the next moment we'll tear a hole into another dimension.

>>57619806

Really?

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-physics-violated-em-leaked-nasa.html

>>57613648
>solar sails don't work guys!

>>57613652
> The conservation of momentum...
...is a human theory. Observation trumps theory. Observation trumps law. Observation trumps every fucking thing, or you are not practicing science.

I'll leave it to others to ponder whether or not CoM is actually preserved or really is broken by the em drive. But understand clearly: if CoM is broken then it is broken and must be revised. Man's words and abstractions are not greater than physical reality.

>>57613661
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

Were ANY of them actually retracted?

>>57613962
Hate to rain on your parade, but there have been a lot more tests than 3.

>>57618285
>Posts wired article.
What are you doing?

>A Chinese team has also provided verification.
Chinese team retracted their result because of a measurement error and then republished having found no significant thrust.

I'm sorry anon, it's unlikely that you'll be flying to Mars on meme magic anytime soon. Go back and shitpost on poll instead.

>>57619330
All those things are possible but the most likely is a measurement error. We aren't clinging blindly to some kind of faith, we are exercising healthy skepticism for something that has been barely tested and does not appear to fit into our current understanding of how the universe works.

One paper, in one peer reviewed article, reporting results that fly in the face of our current understanding does not herald a paradigm change in that field. This is physics, not psychology.

When the results are significantly confirmed by an independant third party they can be taken seriously. Until then, it's fine to be interested and excited but wait and see before jumping to confusions. And for fucksakes stop reading pop-science, clickbait articles and blogs written by people who probably know and understand less about the subject than you do.

>>57619689
People make mistakes, even at NASA. Sometimes they are a hell of a lot more expensive and embarrassing than publishing incorrect results.

>>57620260
>most likely
Based on?

>When the results are significantly confirmed by an independant third party
Nasa isn't the independent third party?

>>57620260
>When the results are significantly confirmed by an independant third party

NASA is the "independent third party", you numpty.

>>57620260
I don't read popsci faggotry.
I read actual papers.
But nice projections, retard.

As you said, nothing wrong about being excited about the possibility of unknown physics.
Constantly sticking to things that are only "well established" is what holds people back.
Fringe science isn't a bad thing.
Fringe science != pseudoscience. It is testing the limits of known science, which is how things progress.

This looks promising enough to take seriously now.
Even if we cannot scale it, it makes satellite industry insanely cheaper and less complex.

>>57620230
>Were ANY of them actually retracted?
Yes.
>Juan Yang at Xi'an's Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU) built and tested three thrusters from 2008 to 2014. Initial observations of thrust[7] were later retracted after a measurement error was identified;[8] with an improved setup they did not measure any significant thrust.[8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

>>57615645
>Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth",
>for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,

Atheists: 0
Christians: 1
Donald Trump: 9,001

File: 0mKXcg1.gif (1MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x360px

>>57619330
>But what I do know for sure is people that cling on to things for no reason other than blind faith are not scientists.

Best sentence in the thread.

>>57619946

There are no brakes on the MemeMagic train.

>>57607169
>meme president
god damnit, this stole my sides

>>57620427

Boeing have been awarded the license to develop the drive further. DARPA and the Pentagon are all over it, as is the UK's Ministry of Defence.

>>57613762
>Hello /pol/; just so you know, the laws of physics are not dictated by popular opinion.

There are no "laws of physics."

There is physical reality and its behavior. And there are man's abstract thoughts about reality. Some of man's thoughts are shit (hurr durr flat Earth). And some of them are pretty good (e=mc^2). But they are always just thoughts. And the map is never the territory.

Newton's 3rd law is a pretty good thought. So far we haven't found a violation of it making it very useful to us. But it is still just a thought.

The em drive either works or it does not. If it does, we might be modifying another one of Newton's thoughts in an attempt to better model reality. We might be improving the map to better describe the territory.

But simply waving your hands and screaming that "the fucking road shouldn't be THERE because it's not on my fucking MAP!" doesn't make you a scientist, it makes you an idiot.

> they will not work for getting a perpetual motion machine to work.

It requires energy so it is not a "perpetual motion machine."

>>57620566
>implying DARPA didn't have a version of it 20 years ago

ayyy lmao

Should I buy one or is it just a meme?

>>57620566
I know right? We fucking science now.
Even if it comes to nothing, the ride is excite.

This thing is so wildly different from a bunch of different research that it is exciting in itself.
Too bad we'll nuke ourselves before anything comes of it.

>>57620505
Sad thing is it is so true.
So many scientists cling to shit for dear life because it makes their lives simpler.

Poincaré said it best himself.
"Shall we be obliged to modify our conclusions? Certainly not; we had adopted a convention because it seemed convenient and we had said that nothing could constrain us to abandon it. Today some physicists want to adopt a new convention. It is not that they are constrained to do so; they consider this new convention more convenient; that is all. And those who are not of this opinion can legitimately retain the old one in order not to disturb their old habits, I believe, just between us, that this is what they shall do for a long time to come."

Relativity, both of them, have so many gaping holes in it that it isn't even funny.
It totally breaks down at high energies, masses, speeds, high anything.
Einstein used Lorentz work on Aether, then used it in a totally incompatible model to come up with his take on relativity, which became accepted.
Fast forward to now and we still can't couple it with the rest of physics.
Thanks, you fuzzy haired nazi.
The only reason we stick with that shit is because it works for our limited needs. Constantly changing research pisses off a lot of scientists that, as Poinecaré mentioned above, leads to people sticking with what they know for long periods of time.

Maybe one day we will get away from that fucking disaster of physics.

>>57620773
>(((Einstein)))

>>57620773
>It totally breaks down at high energies, masses, speeds, high anything.
Kek. It starts to be measurable at all at all of these.

>>57620996
>spits out infinities all over the place

Yes. Those things that break the rest of physics which is far far more established. Great.

>>57620773
>Fast forward to now and we still can't couple it with the rest of physics.
Special relativity works WONDERFULLY with quantum mechanics.

>>57621022
They really seem to be the case though. That's why we can't reach the speed of light and photon always travels at the speed of light - you'd have infinites/divisions by zero otherwise.