420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
EM DRIVVVVVVVVVVE by Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:41:15 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56665 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1479681675546.jpg -(8863B / 8.66KB, 280x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 8863
HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

So apparently after decades of people trying to debunk it and call it pseudoscience, NASA has confirmed the Shawyer EM Drive actually works, producing thrust via microwaves using no propellant, apparently violating the principle of equal and opposite reaction:
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published

The authors suggest that perhaps the long-dead pilot-wave/Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is now a contender again thanks to this new evidence. The microwaves 'push off' of the quantum vacuum, preserving Newton. But if pilot-wave is the true QM, that means not only that alternate realities exist, but that we see them as real effects in our world! (i.e. in the generation of interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. But surely this is but the most minor influence this generates, and probably only the easiest to notice, since in Bohmian mechanics the wave function that governs any given particle system spans the entire universe.)

NASA's totally unoptimized EM drive could get us to Mars in a tithe of the time of even Musk's proposal, with a ship a fraction of the mass ('cause no propellant.) It's bottle popping time /sagan/!
>>
Friedrich von Struve - Mon, 21 Nov 2016 03:38:18 EST ID:gmm1Ygns No.56666 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Man, that is fucking nuts.

I'm more interested in the implications on the field of physics than the practicals of this device. I'd wager we'll see scientific breakthroughs before we can use the EM drive on anything bigger than probes.
>>
44,444 - Mon, 21 Nov 2016 07:07:34 EST ID:bui6jim7 No.56667 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1479730054968.png -(254657B / 248.69KB, 606x770) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Legitimate ET Footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QhfkmEbQto
>>
Mike Brown - Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:02:35 EST ID:89x/mOqK No.56668 Ignore Report Quick Reply
how long until these drives reach consumer level pricing, gotta fly around soon ya' know
>>
Joseph von Fraunhofer - Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:12:51 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56670 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56666
Yeah I think fundamental physics is about to go through a revolution, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't already (physics has a lot of inertia as a discipline, har) Numerous cracks in the standard model have been detected in recent years and have only gotten bigger and bigger. This could be seen as the final nail in the coffin proving the standard model is incomplete.
I think the problem is that the old farts are too committed to the standard model, and the young blood has all come up during the nearly generation long dominance of the LCDM standard model and so don't yet know how to question it.

>>56668
Here's a dudes DIY guide to making your own:
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/
It's really just copper sheets in a particular shape hooked up to a magnetron. Whoda thunkit?
>>
Tadashi Nakajima - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 02:08:57 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56672 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56670
let me know when I can get to work on a pile of old microwaves

are we going to unleash some energy and vaporize the earth? that would be bad.
>>
Walter Adams - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 02:44:12 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56673 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56672
>>let me know when I can get to work on a pile of old microwaves
Do it now, sounds like fun. Watch out for the radioactive bits.

>>are we going to unleash some energy and vaporize the earth? that would be bad.
Probs not, bro.
>>
Jocelyn Bell - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:01:47 EST ID:M/g1akbS No.56674 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480014107025.gif -(99454B / 97.12KB, 478x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
From the abstract of their paper:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

>The test campaign included a null thrust test effort to identify any mundane sources of impulsive thrust; however, none were identified. Thrust data from forward, reverse, and null suggested that the system was consistently performing with a thrust-to-power ratio of 1.2±0.1  mN/kW

1.2±0.1  mN/kW !!

Even with the 0.1 tolerance thats at least 1.1mN/kW, so yeah i guess it actually does work. Now to scale it up! How hard would it be to get one of these suckers into a Cubesat? I think you could fit one in a 6U somehow, maybe folded up?

Image:
>Fig. 1 TM212 field lines in dielectric loaded cavity: red arrows represent electric field, and blue arrows represent magnetic field.
>>
Walter Adams - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:01:39 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56675 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56674
We need to determine if thrust scales with the size of the thruster or the shape of the thruster, because they already found out (at least with their primitive design) that it doesn't scale with power, which is curious.
If we find out that thrust is size scale invariant, then they could just make a micro version of it, since it's just copper and a magnetron they probably could miniaturize it enough to fit on one of Hawking's nano ships, let alone a cubesat.
>>
Tadashi Nakajima - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:17:44 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56676 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56673
No I mean I want to ride the microwaves to work. Like a science chariot
>>
Walter Adams - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:27:35 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56677 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56676
Well that ain't gonna happen bro.
>>
Isaac Newton - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:01:01 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56678 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56677
WHAT GOOD IS THIS SHIT THEN
>>
Walter Adams - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:48:17 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56679 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56678
Well, if your job is on Mars, you can get there without any propellant. Unfortunately, you live in a gravity well, so these thrusters aren't strong enough to help u get to work, m8.
>>
George Hale - Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:51:40 EST ID:IEsyuwKs No.56680 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56679
Sounds like a shitty commute brah. So there's still a propellant though, yes? Such a drive would run on solar electricity probably?
>>
George Airy - Sat, 26 Nov 2016 16:15:27 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56681 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56680
Nope, no propellant, that's what makes it so crazy (like people literally saying 'you're crazy if you think that can work!') unlike other kinds of electric drives which still do use some kind of propellant, like a Hall thruster or photon rocket. It's possible that we will begin to consider microwaves themselves as a propellant, though, but it would require a change in definition.

>>run on solar?
Yup, that would be the idea. If you can get it into space, it doesn't need to bring any fuel with it after that, it can just deploy solar panels and suck its fuel straight out of solar radiation. And since it doesn't need to bring it's fuel, it can be much lighter than all our current ship designs, which mean even these relatively low powered thrusters can get a ship going pretty fast with enough acceleration time.
>>
Edmond Halley - Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:43:53 EST ID:gmm1Ygns No.56682 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480200233189.png -(100633B / 98.27KB, 429x410) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56681

What I don't get is why people are so adamant that movement = discarded mass. I'm no expert in physics, but doesn't relativity prove that mass = energy?

So using simply algebra then movement = discarded energy, right?
>>
Bart Bok - Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:21:29 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56683 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56682
this is kinda what I mean. requiring solar energy = propellant to me. if it ran on no input at all, I'd call it no propellant
>>
Alan Guth - Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:58:37 EST ID:M/g1akbS No.56685 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56681
Solar is alright, but nukes do it all night
>>
Karl Swarzchild - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 02:13:40 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56682
Well, remember energy can't be created or destroyed. Movement causes energy to be transformed from states usable by your body to entropic, unusable states, like waste heat and friction. But the thing is that for something to move it must be able to push against something. If you were just floating in the vacuum of space, your muscles wouldn't do anything, because there is nothing to push against. The way your movement discards energy doesn't turn it into thrust. Yes, we've known that emitting radiation produces a radiation pressure, but until now we didn't think that could be used to produce net thrust because of the conservation of momentum. The EM Drive does indeed violate Newtonian mechanics, at least as we understand them, which is why it is being considered as evidence that the standard model is incomplete.

>>56683
Well you guys can redefine what propellant and Newtonian mechanics mean all you want, that's not how it works. Something running on no input whatsoever would be a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible. Do you not get that what they're saying is that before now you had to project something that has a certain mass to produce an opposite reaction to move in a direction, and the amount you move is based on the velocity and thus mass of the projectile. Photons, which are the carrier of the electromagnetic (microwave) force, don't have a mass. That's part of why this result is so un-expected. You guys homebrew physics, I'm sorry, doesn't apply according to standard definitions.
>>
Bart Bok - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:57:46 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56687 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56686
You don't have to be all sassy about it Karl. I'm not a science expert like you.
>>
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:05:44 EST ID:by9sGz0i No.56688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56682
>What I don't get is why people are so adamant that movement = discarded mass.

They're not. The key point is momentum not mass or energy. Light has no rest mass but a photon rocket does not violate conservation of momentum because light has momentum. With EMdrive as original claimed (which was flat out wrong) there is nothing conserving the momentum. The thing may use energy but that does not get around the issue of momentum conservation.
>>
Karl Swarzchild - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:33:25 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56689 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480286005787.jpg -(28780B / 28.11KB, 379x445) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56687
Sorry, I was digging in for a long debate with some anti-science nut about why a perpetual motion machines can work, I was setting up to go on the attack. These boards have me shell shocked Bart, call the chopper we gotta get an evac...I'm fucked up man...I'm fucked up...
>>
Jocelyn Bell - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:16:24 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56690 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56689
Maybe I can pretend later, just for fun?

That's pretty cool though. Maybe the opposite force is moving into another universe powering pyramids and crystals or something
>>
Arthur Eddington - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 15:53:37 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56691 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480366417208.jpg -(110527B / 107.94KB, 844x371) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56690
HRHRHGGGGG

Actually the opposite force transforms into Big Hentai and HIFFWE. Who knew?
>>
Alan Guth - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:55:52 EST ID:CBz7KDNW No.56692 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm gonna tie 10 EM drives on a wheel and put a dynamo on that wheel, and I'll let the EM drives generate power with the dynamo, and then I'll plug the EM drives into the dynamo and INFINITE ENERGY MOTHERFUCKERS!
>>
Giovanni Cassini - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:38:28 EST ID:gmm1Ygns No.56693 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480455508194.png -(286888B / 280.16KB, 512x384) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56692

Be careful, that wheel might divide by zero. If that happens we're all fucked.
>>
John Wheeler - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:20:35 EST ID:1X8L5Ad1 No.56695 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56692
Fuck yeah! Now I can get to work for cheap!
>>
George Gamow - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:53:18 EST ID:SeDpkV6S No.56696 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56665
"equal and opposite reactions" is not a principle. It is something that happens with conservative forced ñike gravity. If it was a real principle you couldn't move.
>>
Gerard Kuiper - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:48:06 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56697 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56696
What? No?
Is this a rebranding of Zeno's paradox?
I don't even get what you're saying. A principle is merely a theoretical component of a theory of physical law; it's a colloquial term for what we would call a 'postulate' in logic. What is it that you think it means to call something a 'principle' that would make the conservation of momentum mean you couldn't move?
>>
Edwin Hubble - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:51:38 EST ID:OXINl/7g No.56699 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56665
I'm not buying it. They measured something really, really small and I'm not convinced it wasn't just noise in the data. I need more than that if it's going to upend a fundamental law of physics.

That said, test the shit out of it, and if it turns out to be real, let's rock.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:00:29 EST ID:OXINl/7g No.56700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56696
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is an often-used, but poorly-worded summary of Newton's 3rd law: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body." If the EM drive works, it violates Newton's 3rd law and further, the law of conservation of momentum.

It would be like powering a sailboat by putting a fan on the deck to fill the sails.
>>
Walter Adams - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:11:01 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56699
>>test the shit out
Lots of people have made DIY builds and other replications, some of them have even posted amounts of thrust x100 than the NASA EW experiment.
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
That being said, the EW result is the most significant, as it legitimizes further replications by other -- probably aerospace -- organizations, and some day maybe a physicist will have the temerity to go against their peers and test one out.
>>
Bart Bok - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:55:09 EST ID:gmm1Ygns No.56703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480719309026.jpg -(40909B / 39.95KB, 500x470) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56702

>some day maybe a physicist will have the temerity to go against their peers and test one out.

But the phycisists just kinda did. Otherwise that paper would've never been peer reviewed. The EM drive is as real as the continent of America.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:02:03 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56703
I wish, but as a long of people griefing the EM drive right now are pointing out, it got accepted in an aerospace engineering journal, and thus was peer reviewed by engineers, moreover the team at NASA are engineers, not physicists. Physicists are largely dismissing this result out of hand, saying the effect is too small, etc. even though they don't have any empirical reason to dismiss it (other than that it violates theory, which is more than enough for most to completely disregard it.)
The fight's not over yet, but this is a huge victory. I didn't even think it wasn't bunk before this result, and a lot of hard science folks would probably call me a crank magnet.
>>
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Sat, 03 Dec 2016 01:38:43 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480747123174.gif -(41375B / 40.41KB, 320x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56704
>crank magnet
this is what currently gets me to work. not a fancy flubber drive like in op

this place is salty. did the crazies do this to you? Show me where they touched you.
>>
Kip Thorne - Thu, 08 Dec 2016 16:34:27 EST ID:10QI3ruX No.56707 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1481232867444.jpg -(397506B / 388.19KB, 1045x1045) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56692
Man I just want to generate infinite energy and ride around with unlimited freedom. Fucking imagine it, going forever, wherever you want to go, however you want to go. And all just with the purchase of one sweet em drive. Fuck I want to be an early investor in this. How do I throw my cash at this shit?
>>
John Wheeler - Thu, 08 Dec 2016 16:42:42 EST ID:gmm1Ygns No.56708 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1481233362410.jpg -(14749B / 14.40KB, 250x328) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56707

>How do I throw my cash at this shit?

Don't. Wait for the zero-point energy generators instead.
>>
Stephen Hawking - Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:02:08 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56709 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56707
It's...not a perpetual motion machine? Like you have to plug it in for it to work...
>>
Fred Whipple - Fri, 09 Dec 2016 19:55:03 EST ID:Wxa7ssK3 No.56710 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56709
I think perpetual motion is kind of a misnomer. Like, we're all in a state of perpetual motion, you know? Maybe it could be a perpetual acceleration machine, but that remains to be seen.
>>
Bart Bok - Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:23:00 EST ID:OXINl/7g No.56711 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56710
It's more that for this thing to work, it has to put out more energy than is put into it. That's... complicated... if not outright impossible.
>>
James van Allen - Sun, 11 Dec 2016 20:47:07 EST ID:Y3QARCfj No.56712 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1481507227055.png -(158939B / 155.21KB, 1253x698) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56704
There are substantial questions raised about the paper and it's very clear from these arguments that the paper is lacking. For example the biggest flaw is that it has been pointed out that many of the response curves in the paper appear to point to thermal expansion. Such as this example. The device is turned off but the "thrust" only peaks then, and then there is an exponential decline just like a cooling curve. These effects get a mention in the paper but they crudely attempt to model them out under the assumption of uniform heating, that assumption clearly isn't true as their two templates (expansion and thrust) cannot fit the curve I've posted together with constant heating and steady thrust. This combined with the fact the control isn't a true control for thermal expansion is a problem.

>Physicists are largely dismissing this result out of hand
Out of experience and healthy skepticism. When the tests are convincing, exhaustive and complete people will be convinced, not before. The data isn't even public yet. Part of the problem is that this group chooses to communicate though rumors, press-releases and forums over scientific publication.
>>
Roger Penrose - Mon, 12 Dec 2016 20:47:23 EST ID:1xERvVrq No.56713 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56709
>>56710
>>56711
>perpetual motion machine

The inventor thinks it's a reactionless drive. However, since having a reactionless drive would let you build a perpetual motion machine, most think it simply does not work.

For those willing to seriously test it, some of them think it's a q-thruster instead of reactionless, while some think it's a darkmatter-thruster instead of reactionless. If it is generating the reaction-mass to push against or if it is pushing against dark matter, then you cannot build perpetual motion machine from it. Accidentally stumbled upon a way to generate something similar to Hawking/Unruh radiation or to interact dark matter would still be groundbreaking.

Nevertheless, healthy skepticism is warranted and further experiments are needed.
>>
Rudolph Minkowski - Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:39:46 EST ID:ybUJp2Le No.56714 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1481607586576.jpg -(80049B / 78.17KB, 694x530) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56713
Q-thruster
>>
Grote Reuber - Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:38:22 EST ID:LqvO4qPg No.56715 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56700

if the fan was strong enough why wouldnt that work?
>>
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:08:56 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56716 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56715
Because the air coming out of the fan pushes the fan backwards with the same amount of force it pushes the sail forward, and since they're both connected to the ship, it goes nowhere.
>>
Thomas Gold - Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:37:25 EST ID:Wxa7ssK3 No.56717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56716
But on a real boat the wind can hit the sail from other directions besides right behind it. The sail redirects the wind so that it pushes the boat forward. A fan blowing onto the sail would work in most cases.
>>
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Wed, 14 Dec 2016 02:50:25 EST ID:M/g1akbS No.56718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56717
This thread started with news of a quantum force engine being tested by a NASA team....and you guys are now debating fans on sailboats.

Never change, /sagan/
>>
Edmond Halley - Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:33:38 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56719 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56717
Hoooooleeeeeeeee fuck.
You guys, seriously. Plz. Go back to High School science. You needs it.
The energy that moves a sailboat forward comes from the wind. When the wind pushes against the sail, the wind is pushed backwards with the same force it pushes the sail forward. The difference is the wind isn't connected to the sail, so the sail is actually able to move.
The fan wouldn't do shit. Literally it would just sit there. Don't you think if that worked someone would have made one by now? Are you a fucking troll?
>>
Rudolph Minkowski - Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:51:25 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.56720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1481763085605.webm [mp4] -(4994330B / 4.76MB, 638x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56700
>>
Stephen Hawking - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:56:42 EST ID:OXINl/7g No.56721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56720
Yeah well... okay. But you and I know that's more goes into why that happened. Grant explains it mid-video, too, about refraction forces (which wouldn't work in a vacuum anyway). But even using this example, the EM drive is CLOSED. Those same refraction forces are hitting the back "wall" of the container and they'd cancel the forward momentum by providing an opposite-direction force.

In the end, using the Mythbusters example again, you'd get far more thrust just pointing the jet engine out behind the boat instead of into the sails. You lose kinetic energy every time that force has to change directions.
>>
Tadashi Nakajima - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:47:59 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56722 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56720
Yeah, seriously, this doesn't prove that the conservation of momentum is bunk, it proves that you can use a propeller to generate thrust within the air. The fan is moving their rig in *spite* of the sail, not because of it. If the fan and sail were a closed system that didn't allow some of the force transferred toward the sail to be refracted in different directions, there wouldn't be any net thrust to move it at all.
>>
Karl Swarzchild - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:10:32 EST ID:Wxa7ssK3 No.56723 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56720

BOOOYAH
>>
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:45:30 EST ID:MJmJAEju No.56724 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So this thing just "implies" that there should be motion in front of it?
>>
Jocelyn Bell - Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:59:32 EST ID:VvCkbRwa No.56731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56724
Yep, it runs on pure deductive pressure. Sort of like an improbability drive but in reverse.
>>
Fritz Zwicky - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:12:31 EST ID:Wxa7ssK3 No.56734 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think if there's one thing we can learn from all this, it's that the Luminiferous Aether is in fact real, it just isn't in the stationary form that Michelson and Morley expected it to be in when they tried to detect it with their famous experiment over a century ago.
>>
Stephen Hawking - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:32:10 EST ID:FA8krFxC No.56739 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56734
The MM experiment was sensitive to a moving aether. Please do some research before coming up with bullshit like that.
>>
Karl von Weizsacker - Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:43:37 EST ID:Wxa7ssK3 No.56743 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56739
I meant stationary as in, stationary to the center of the universe. Not stationary relative to their reference frame.

And also, it permeates everything. That's why the EM drive can grab on to the aether which resides inside the RF cavity.
>>
Jacob Kapteyn - Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:15:10 EST ID:rZ3YueeL No.56744 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56743
>I meant stationary as in, stationary to the center of the universe.

Two problems with that: 1) there is no center of the universe in standard cosmology, 2) the experiment could only measure the aether the light was traveling though, the velocity of that aether with respect to "the center of the unvierse" is completely irrelevant. The experiment only required the aether was moving with respect to the lab frame, any other velocity is irrelevant. Please stop bullshiting.
>>
Jacob Kapteyn - Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:16:59 EST ID:rZ3YueeL No.56745 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A nice summary of the problems with the published paper.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36830
>>
Anders Angstrom - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:11:34 EST ID:ZZZCwSAu No.56753 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56745
To be fair, this article is mostly an indictment of the current state of research into fundamental physics, not the authors of the paper. The EW lab can't be expected to solve fundamental issues in physics with a single paper, their own suggested solutions are that, merely suggestions in a vacuum of answers.

That the rest of the physics community has resolutely refused to engage this issue to settle it one way or another is due to insularity and fingers-in-the-ears syndrome and is entirely the 'problem' of the physics community at large, not this one paper or even any of the people who have been doing precisely what this paper suggests, trying to test the effect.
>>
Harlow Shapley - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:50:22 EST ID:bK9SRfvs No.56754 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56753
No, the actual criticism of the paper in the article is about their methodology. That is 100% the fault of the authors of the paper. They can be expected to question their own assumptions made in data reduction but they don't appear to have done so.

It's not the job of the rest of the community to do anything other than provide criticism right now. Before asking other researchers to invest their time and money in verification you need to convince them that you have done every test you can and explored all sources of error. That hasn't happened yet. The paper wasn't even published in a physics journal, EW doesn't appear to be interested in engaging with the physics community.
>>
Isaac Newton - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 02:02:38 EST ID:dz7Zv84F No.56755 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56754
>EW doesn't appear to be interested in engaging with the physics community.
That's actually a very common trait of these folks who research reactionless drives / free energy / perpetual motion machine / cold fusion. Most of them appear to have an engineering background as opposed to a science background. I suspect engineers are more easily fooled by confirmation bias, as their goal is to repeat an experiment until it succeeds. The philosophy of natural scientists would instead be to try to punch holes in their pet theories until the experiment fails, and if it doesn't the hypothesis would be correct. The mindsets of the editorial boards of engineering and physics journals are in general quite similar.

The other two independent groups in China and Germany working on the EM drive have now realized their initially positive results were caused by experimental errors and withdrawn their supportive opinions, by the way.
>>
Walter Baade - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:10:19 EST ID:yzfSDg8q No.56756 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56755
>The other two independent groups in China and Germany working on the EM drive have now realized their initially positive results were caused by experimental errors and withdrawn their supportive opinions, by the way.

Would this be the same Chinese group that is claiming that they've been successfully testing it in space and now plan to equip their satellites with this technology?
>>
Edmond Halley - Sat, 14 Jan 2017 04:56:45 EST ID:dz7Zv84F No.56758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>56756
No, that would be the Xi'an team lead by Juan Yang who actually conducted experiments and published their research. And no, Chen Yue's team has not successfully tested the EM drive in space. Right now his only verifiable success is getting a couple of patents approved (which isn't a very radical development, as cold fusion was patented both in the US and Europe). There's also a Chinese state media press release about building a test device that could in the future be tested in space. Let's talk more about how successful or not the tests were if and when the results of the alleged experiment are published.

Feel free to read the press release yourself. There's been a lot of dodgy science journalism and wild claims in the blogosphere about this lately.
https://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&sl=cn&tl=en&u=http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm

And of course every nation would put it on their satellites if it works - this shit would revolutionize space propulsion, provide free energy to Mankind, and allow us to conquer the stars. But all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right now the "best" evidence for the EM drive is shit like this >>56712
Just look at that graph and laugh.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.