breaking the laws of physics

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#2
Yes, it will eventually be debunked. Someone will find a way to show human error was the culprit for the anomalous result. So there really was no thrust all along. Just like the mistaken UFO crash at Roswell that was shown to be a weather balloon.
 
Aug 15, 2014
105
10
0
32
Chicago, IL
#3
\ said:
Yes, it will eventually be debunked. Someone will find a way to show human error was the culprit for the anomalous result. So there really was no thrust all along. Just like the mistaken UFO crash at Roswell that was shown to be a weather balloon.
Where did you come up with this? I'm willing to wager that you do not understand why the engine has been hypothesized not to create thrust, and yet you are more than willing to create a theory out of no where.
 

KerrTexas

Moderator
Staff member
May 13, 2004
2,730
123
63
Texas
#4
\ said:
Where did you come up with this? I'm willing to wager that you do not understand why the engine has been hypothesized not to create thrust, and yet you are more than willing to create a theory out of no where.
Einstein's comment was a sarcastic remark and I understand his sentiments.


It is a common tactic used by several industries to hinder or eliminate more efficient products ( inventions/inventors ).


The retractable syringe being one example. Tesla Motors being another.


Wouldn't be hard to convince some people why that engine doesn't work, have it vanish - debunked and forgotten - into some corporate/government labyrinth, when the engine did in fact - work all along.
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#5
\ said:
Einstein's comment was a sarcastic remark and I understand his sentiments.
It is a common tactic used by several industries to hinder or eliminate more efficient products ( inventions/inventors ).


The retractable syringe being one example. Tesla Motors being another.


Wouldn't be hard to convince some people why that engine doesn't work, have it vanish - debunked and forgotten - into some corporate/government labyrinth, when the engine did in fact - work all along.
Yeah, that can happen I suppose. Does the conjecture have anything to do with this thread, however?


But go back and read the article. Read it critically and for content. After you do that does the article make any sense? Look at it, copy it, paste it, delete all unsupported opinions, conjecture, exaggeration, inconsistency, self-contradiction, false statement and general bullshit and look at what you have left. Look close. The article really is poorly written, probably by a college freshman. It's sitting out there pretty plain to see if you look.


(We're examining the article itself because that's where the information for this thread is supposed to be coming from.)
 

KerrTexas

Moderator
Staff member
May 13, 2004
2,730
123
63
Texas
#6
\ said:
Yeah, that can happen I suppose. Does the conjecture have anything to do with this thread, however?
But go back and read the article. Read it critically and for content. After you do that does the article make any sense? Look at it, copy it, paste it, delete all unsupported opinions, conjecture, exaggeration, inconsistency, self-contradiction, false statement and general bullshit and look at what you have left. Look close. The article really is poorly written, probably by a college freshman. It's sitting out there pretty plain to see if you look.


(We're examining the article itself because that's where the information for this thread is supposed to be coming from.)
No supposing at all. Companies have purposely squashed products, inventions, etc., that they perceive to be a threat to their own.


Does conjecture have anything to do with this thread? As long as it is framed within the context of the EmDrive, then, yes.


Einstein read the blog - poorly written or not - about the EmDrive - and posted a sarcastic remark about the "possible" future of the engine.


Based on devious actions that have occurred in the past, he has a valid point.


Even though the blog is poorly written, does that mean there is absolutely no merit in the engine what-so-ever?


Just maybe --- further research is OK for those folks that find the EmDrive "itself" to be interesting.


The topic of this thread is about the EmDrive, not the syntax of a blog.


To quote from the blog : " ... a team of Chinese scientists. They built one .... "


Einsteins remark still would have been valid if the thread had started with this :


http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
 

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#7
Darby;


It appears you find fault with this article but does that extend to the premise?


I would really like to hear your opinion on that. I've been clear, I think, that my education in 'physics' had been from a classical viewpoint. My college physics was an A to Z class and the professor stayed with the classical, Newtonian, physics with atomic structure and such included but, I can't recall any mention of quantum anything. This was the early 80's so, was it even covered much in textbooks then? Since then, I've picked up more information but still not enough. From my Newtonian viewpoint, I have the question; If every action has a corresponding opposite reaction, can that be extended to include quantum action? EM energy transmission? I have a little TT story of my own I have played around with but have never considered it in a completed form to share or publish, and in it, I assert that the equal and opposite reaction includes photons. When a photon is emitted an opposite anti-photon is emitted and that accounts for the "Dark Energy" physicists claim exists. But in the quantum level it is not equal and is the genesis of the FTL "tachyon". I would be 'pleasantly' surprised if EM energy produces thrust by an opposite action as I surmised in my story. Or, am I simply off my rocker? :)
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#8
\ said:
Darby;
It appears you find fault with this article but does that extend to the premise?


I would really like to hear your opinion on that. I've been clear, I think, that my education in 'physics' had been from a classical viewpoint. My college physics was an A to Z class and the professor stayed with the classical, Newtonian, physics with atomic structure and such included but, I can't recall any mention of quantum anything. This was the early 80's so, was it even covered much in textbooks then? Since then, I've picked up more information but still not enough. From my Newtonian viewpoint, I have the question; If every action has a corresponding opposite reaction, can that be extended to include quantum action? EM energy transmission? I have a little TT story of my own I have played around with but have never considered it in a completed form to share or publish, and in it, I assert that the equal and opposite reaction includes photons. When a photon is emitted an opposite anti-photon is emitted and that accounts for the "Dark Energy" physicists claim exists. But in the quantum level it is not equal and is the genesis of the FTL "tachyon". I would be 'pleasantly' surprised if EM energy produces thrust by an opposite action as I surmised in my story. Or, am I simply off my rocker? :)
Not you - that article. The thread is about the contents of the article. Go back and read the article for actual content. You'll be surprised as to how little there actually is. Then ask yourself: Did I see what I want to see in the article or was it actually there in the article?
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#9
I'll give a break to everyone who failed to read the Shawyer paper that the article references. As I said, read the goddamned article for content rather than seeing what you want to see:


From the article:

The entire idea that we have found something that seems to go against the the principle of conservation of momentum just seems crazy to me.
From Shawyer's paper IAC-13,C4,P,44.p1,x17254 "THE DYNAMIC OPERATON OF A HIGH Q EMDRIVE MICROWAVE THRUSTER"


From the Abstract -

The very high specific thrusts resulting from such second generation (2G)devices must be subject to the law of conservation of energy. It follows therefore, that there must be a mechanism which limits the acceleration of any vehicle propelled by a 2G EmDrive thruster.
From the Conclusions section -

A mechanism which limits the acceleration of a very high Q EmDrive thruster has been described, which illustrates how the thruster complies with the law of conservation of energy.
In other words it's a total bullshit statement in the article and the statement is absolutely contrary to what Shawyer published, i.e. the article author made it up because he knows that other Fruitbats would read the statement with utter amazement and Believe.


At that point I didn't need to read or even analyze this College Frosh Fruitbat's article any further. I can read Shawyer's papers if I'm curious.


Read for content.


Let's be honest - I'm the only member of this forum who read the Shawyer articles, correct? And I mean read them before making comments on the article.


"Everyone was laughing, physicists can't explain, breaks the laws of physics" my aching arse.
 

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#10
Darby;


Again I beg your patience.


I read the original link ruthless provided and then these;


http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf


http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13poster17254.pdf


http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf


And finally this one and, this one seems to be legitimately from NASA


NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum


It does seem that NASA discovered some thrust.


I certainly can't claim to understand everything I read. That is why I asked your opinion on it. My fictional TT story aside, my question was, if there were possibly, Newtonian like, opposite reactions on the quantum level?


I agree the article listed by ruthless resembles the headlines in the supermarket tabloids seen at checkout lanes. It was the NASA article that caused me to have questions.
 

KerrTexas

Moderator
Staff member
May 13, 2004
2,730
123
63
Texas
#11
Darby is taking issue with the content of the blog linked by Ruthless. Not with what you read beyond that bleepin' blog, Gpa. ( at least within the parameters of this particular thread )


Based on the BS of the blog ( written by Jesus Diaz ); any reader - could not and would not - be able to draw legitimate conclusions about the EmDrive. The first clue regarding "that blog" without even reading it, are the titles of other posts written by Mr. Diaz, such as, "Wingsuit guy flies so close to tress he probably got twigs in his pants" and " This champagne glass is shaped after Kate Moss' left breast "


I agree with Darby that the content(s) of the piece as thrown together by Mr. Diaz is just as Darby describes and any readers interested in the EmDrive should look elsewhere for more information. If one wishes to comment on Mr. Shawyer's work then they need to read Mr. Shawyer's paper first.


I didn't read Shawyer's paper, but, instead chose to read the manuscript written by the Chinese who built their own. Seems that should suffice to form some conclusions about propellantless microwave thrusters.


However, as stressed by you, Darby, the propellantless microwave thrusters themselves are NOT the topic of this thread. Mr. Diaz's bleepin' blog IS.
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#12
The bottom line is that the article is as Gpa points out of the genre of "Elvis Had My Three Headed Baby", i.e. Fruitbat reporting.


There was no controversy, physicists were not laughing, physical laws were not broken. We've known about and studied for over a century Planck, Kirchhoff Radiation, black body radiation and in general, radiation trapped in closed containers.