NASA's "Impossible" Space Engine Has Officially Passed Peer Review

[Geoff.D]

I am not a novice to science and I don't want to blow my own trumpet here but I was the top performer in science and chemistry and achieved distinctions of over 90% in these subjects when the average was under 30%. So you cannot fool me.

Science does not need mathematical evidence at all. Science is all about "strength of evidence" and repeatability. Maths needs proof but not science.
Science theories will change when new evidence is found but mathematics will stay as it is. It cannot ever be refuted.

So what I'm saying is that "proof" is for math and alcohol only. Not science.

If it works it will only move a few grams and will take decades of development to actually move cars, jets and space rockets into orbit. I look forward to December to see the havoc it will cause in the scientific community as they scramble to re-write Newton's laws.

Then why did you make the remark in your first post in this thread highlighted above? Are you trying sensationalise the whole matter?

Read the original papers on the phenomena first noticed in 1952 in the process of investigation something completely unrelated to thrust etc.

It has been shown a few times since then that this theory does not violate any of Newton's laws, so no one is going to fall around trying rewrite Newton's laws.

It has been pretty difficult to demonstrate the thrust on earth up until now as you and others have attested. So the natural outcome is to try and do this experiment in Space.

Instead we should (those that have a genuine interest in Science) applaud the attempts to prove (or disprove) the theory. Proof of the theory may result in the development of a useful method for travelling in space, which could be many years' away.

And BTW as a purported Science major with better marks than most of us, why try and make an issue out of the relationship between science and mathematics? Is this to try and justify your view: "I look forward to December to see the havoc it will cause in the scientific community as they scramble to re-write Newton's laws"?

BTW: here are alternative links to one OP used in case his link does not want to work for you.
http://www.sciencealert.com/new-pap...drive-doesn-t-defy-newton-s-3rd-law-after-all

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-impossible-em-drive-is-about-to-be-tested-in-space

 

[Geoff.D]

You shot down a random comment of someone else in a rather condescending manner without even a hint of rationale...so...lets hear your reasoning as to why he is wrong.

I'd love to hear it - despite me thinking Oopsie is generally full of it this particular comment of his seems sound.


Oh? Which old theories what that be? Last I checked people can't even agree how/why this works at all...never mind it being based on something that has been know for a long time.

A copy of the original paper written by Roger Shawyer and published in 2006, can be found on this site : www.emdrive.com referring to the first time this phenomena was noticed and documented in a paper:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave
Frequencies’ IEE Proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952 P.100

View attachment theorypaper9-4.pdf

Why my interest in all of this? Well many years ago we were trying to pinpoint an interference source in microwave communications systems and for a while we thought that this phenomena was the cause of the anomalies we were seeing. It turned out not to be the case, but for a while quite a few of us were deeply involved in the science and mathematics behind the measurements.

 

[saor]

100% correct. But then the question is: what's the point really? There will still be the massive cost and risk getting the payload into space. Once up there, nearly no fuel is required to move the payload and insane speeds are reached anyway. So, as always, distance is the only factor limiting space travel for humans.

There's an inherent safety issue in carrying around large quantities of chemical / combustible fuel wherever you go. A tank of fuel going horribly wrong = an explosion. An EM drive going wrong is likely just a really really hard engineering problem to deal with.

 

[Oopsie]

EM-drives have been invented in the 1950's and are "free energy" or "zero gravity propulsion systems" or whatever you want to call it. Many scientists that have been investigating this have been shut down by governments due to the impact on their income from fossil fuels that they so depend on.

Some scientists have found that EM Drives can be so powerful that the craft can launch from earth and reach speeds greater than the speed of light in an instant.
To do so, they will have to transgress spacetime. This is simple as the space behind the craft will decompress and the space in front will compress. The faster the craft goes, the shorter the distance to the target becomes.
If at the speed of light this target distance becomes shorter by 7,4 times.

This might sound like a science fiction movie but we are getting there. Now if we on the ground observe this craft to zip up in milliseconds, the occupants will look down at a jogger on earth and see him to take one step in 2 minutes. This is why the occupants of the craft do not get splattered on the walls with the acceleration. This is time dilation.

 

[Geoff.D]

EM-drives have been invented in the 1950's and are "free energy" or "zero gravity propulsion systems" or whatever you want to call it. Many scientists that have been investigating this have been shut down by governments due to the impact on their income from fossil fuels that they so depend on.

Some scientists have found that EM Drives can be so powerful that the craft can launch from earth and reach speeds greater than the speed of light in an instant.
To do so, they will have to transgress spacetime. This is simple as the space behind the craft will decompress and the space in front will compress. The faster the craft goes, the shorter the distance to the target becomes.
If at the speed of light this target distance becomes shorter by 7,4 times.

This might sound like a science fiction movie but we are getting there. Now if we on the ground observe this craft to zip up in milliseconds, the occupants will look down at a jogger on earth and see him to take one step in 2 minutes. This is why the occupants of the craft do not get splattered on the walls with the acceleration. This is time dilation.

Now unfortunately, this is where all the problems around the research into em-drives starts to go wrong. Again with the conspiracy theories, suppressed experiments by governments etc.

This is NOT what is hopefully going to be tested in space. The various theories proposed to describe what is leading to the observed results will either be validated or not. Either way, hopefully a much better understanding of what is going on will emerge.

 

[ponder]

Some scientists have found that EM Drives can be so powerful that the craft can launch from earth and reach speeds greater than the speed of light in an instant.
To do so, they will have to transgress spacetime. This is simple as the space behind the craft will decompress and the space in front will compress. The faster the craft goes, the shorter the distance to the target becomes.
If at the speed of light this target distance becomes shorter by 7,4 times.

Last time I did science was long ago. When an object approaches c does the mass not increase thus requiring infinite energy to reach c?

 

[Oopsie]

Last time I did science was long ago. When an object approaches c does the mass not increase thus requiring infinite energy to reach c?

Correct as M=E/C^2
So the mass will increase as you need more energy as you need more propulsion. Now with Zero Point Energy you not need to increase the energy at all so the mass will remain the same as it was at the starting point.

Simple not so? I must add that there is no acceleration involved or gravity so you will not become a grease splatter on the wall behind you.

 

[konfab]

Where there is a will, there is a discussion forum dedicated to the topic:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/

Specifically a thread on the EM.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0

 

[Geoff.D]

Where there is a will, there is a discussion forum dedicated to the topic:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/

Specifically a thread on the EM.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0

Thank you for posting the links.

 

[Oopsie]

Space Warp Dynamics

Prof David Pares:

"If NASA did what we did and had the measurements we have today,
they’d be parading them around and getting the Nobel Prize in
Physics."

Pares and his team of scientists are working on a different method called "Space Warp Dynamics" whereby they use a "space warp bubble" around the craft to propel it from earth into space at many times the speed of light in an instant. This may make the NASA one look like Micky Mouse if successful.

He has submitted science papers but they were unsuccessful due to there not being any peers in any science journals qualified to do so.
I hope he and his team are on the right track though.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/th...s-still-working-on-a-warp-drive-in-his-garage

 

[Nerfherder]

I am not a novice to science and I don't want to blow my own trumpet here but I was the top performer in science and chemistry and achieved distinctions of over 90% in these subjects when the average was under 30%. So you cannot fool me.

Science does not need mathematical evidence at all. Science is all about "strength of evidence" and repeatability. Maths needs proof but not science.
Science theories will change when new evidence is found but mathematics will stay as it is. It cannot ever be refuted.

So what I'm saying is that "proof" is for math and alcohol only. Not science.

Where you home schooled ?

 

[itareanlnotani]

Where you home schooled ?

Trying to be ironic, or just a 30%er?

--


Some good discussion of the topic here -

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1280545

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

There's an inherent safety issue in carrying around large quantities of chemical / combustible fuel wherever you go. A tank of fuel going horribly wrong = an explosion. An EM drive going wrong is likely just a really really hard engineering problem to deal with.

You will always have a tank of fuel that can go horribly wrong, when launching from Earth. That is my point. Fuel tanks do not blow up during small control burns for directional changes whilst in space.

Space travel will always be hindered by 2 things that cannot be changed or manipulated(yet):

Earth's gravity
Distance

 

[Mortymoose]

You will always have a tank of fuel that can go horribly wrong, when launching from Earth. That is my point. Fuel tanks do not blow up during small control burns for directional changes whilst in space.

Space travel will always be hindered by 2 things that cannot be changed or manipulated(yet):

Earth's gravity
Distance

You forgot Human Error!

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

You forgot Human Error!

"hindered by 2 things that cannot be changed or manipulated"

When we replace central launch command and all engineers with flawless androids, Earth's gravity and Distance will still be there.

 

[Oopsie]

"hindered by 2 things that cannot be changed or manipulated"

When we replace central launch command and all engineers with flawless androids, Earth's gravity and Distance will still be there.

Space Warp Dynamics say their craft is not affected by gravity at all. The space-warp bubble they say, is zero or anti gravity.
It has already been theorized that when approaching C velocity, the space or distance in front of the craft will contract 7,4 fold. Our closest star is ~4,2 light years away but when traveling near C velocity, it would be a 6 month trip.