/sci/ - Science & Math

Now, how many wonders hidden and ahead of us?

Tesla was right.

Is this a magnet?

Damnit I was just about to post this thread, and yo u beat me to it. So uhm, thoughts about this /sci/? Seems like potentially a big deal, provided NASA isn't just tugging on our cocks.

they were right to talk shit about it, it was unproven technology that has no real explanation for its mechanism

>posting this on /sci/
It's fucking hopeless, don't even try. Here's some Neil Degrasse Tyson.

>>6674197
>wired
Just fuck off.
I want to see some experiments and papers.

>>6674205
if you had read the article you'd have seen the link to the paper not far in

>>6674197
Interesting if confirmed by multiple sources but way too early to get our hopes up. We're talking about a system that's supposedly generating *micro*newtons of thrust - that's got to be getting down near the error threshold for whatever instrumentation is being used.

Will definitely keep an eye on it but it may end up being another Wardenclyffe boondoggle

The NASA paper for anyone interested:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf

>>6674208
>Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).
lmao, and people are treating this as evidence?

From Reddit:

>Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).

>"Nasa did not validate anything. They are just scratching their heads and trying to find why their setup is wrong."

>>6674200
It's an asymmetrically shaped RF cavity that you fill with RF radiation. The asymmetry causes the waves inside to experience relativistic effects as they change wavelength while being deformed along the angled walls while bouncing back and fourth between the plates resulting in thrust.
>inb4 it's a tiny thrust
The thrust is based on the Q factor of the material, if you had a perfect superconductor for the walls of the device it would be a direct RF --> thrust conversion. Right now it's RF --> thrust+heat with the vast majority as heat because they are using materials with shit Q-factors for the walls.

>>6674209
I agree, this could just be some fuckery in the measurements used, but it has been independently verified by at least three separate scientific teams now. Only time will tell.

>>6674209
There's also the Chinese EmDrive results, but nobody really took those seriously. They might have to be reexamined if this holds up.

>>6674211
Please don't open your mouth again

>>6674201
>Seems like potentially a big deal, provided NASA isn't just tugging on our cocks.
Unless they've got invisible hands I don't think that's the case, though it might be a good way to increase the public's desire to fund them.

>>6674217
>oh nooooooo, someone might point out that NASA didn't validate shit here, better shut them up!

>>6674203
It was proven by two different groups and worse yet they talked shit saying the THEORY was unsound. You are a fucking pleb and you disgrace /sci/ by speaking.

Sounds like a safer Orion Drive/Casaba Howitzer.

>>6674212
Such autistic close mindedness pisses me off. Of course the first step in such scenarios is to immediately check your setup to see if there are any obvious things that could cause an anomalous reading, but I can't stand these little fuckers who post as if they know 100% that there is absolutely nothing going on besides a problem with the test setup.

>>6674201
>>6674204
>>6674208
>>6674215
>>6674217
>>6674221

NASAIDF please go

>>6674220
You aren't actually contributing to the discussion.

>>6674211
>>6674212
>>6674220
You stupid stupid faggots. Their experiment was based on materials of different Q-factors for the walls instead of different geometrical configurations. Of course adding geometrical distortions would have pretty much no effect when the ridiculously shit Q-factors, one of which was designed to be ridiculously ridiculous were causing the waves to dissipate after a single deformation at best. Holy fuck learn a theory before you try to evaluate the experimental results.

>>6674229
>experimental results
show me

>>6674197
what the deal with nasa funding bullshit lately?
>muh superconducting disks producing antigravity
>huh stargate
>mum warp drives
>hum EMdrives

it wouldnt bother me so much if they just held off all the publicity until they at least have some results to show that ist just 'we detected some small thing, it might be what we are looking for, or not'

or if what they are trying to do didnt contradict current physics.

>>6674221
No it wasn't proven. If two groups saying yes was proof the superconductor ring thing would be sound, but it's long dead.

The theory is still unsound, that's why physicists don't like it. There are also concerns about the Chinese replication which still exist.

Like cold fusion I'll wait until there are several replications. We need to wait until systematic errors can be ruled out.

relevant

>>6674231
Read the fucking paper faggot. I'm not here to fulfill your queries anymore than I'm here to answer your homework help questions. I just came to call you a shortsighted faggot that speaks on subjects they know nothing of, something you yourself have confirmed literally every time you've posted.

>>6674233
NASA is reporting anomalous results, which after preliminary error checking does not disappear. This is the third team, at least, to have produced similar results using a similar setup. It's worth publishing, as they might actually be on to something

>>6674209
>that's got to be getting down near the error threshold for whatever instrumentation is being used.
error threshold was reportedly 10Mn, trust was 40-50Mn

>>6674236
Link to paper please
>inb4 wired, BBC or any other news link
Would like to see some math.

>>6674233
>what the deal with nasa funding bullshit lately?
Because none of those things are bullshit you retarded pop-sci "imma nerdy scientist now" regurgitating faggot. You are the type of person that gave the title "nerd" a bad name.

>>6674239
It's been linked like 3 times in this thread you nigger

>>6674233
>contradict current physics
>current

That's the thing, Anon. Einstein locked us in current physics with e=mc2. There's a hell of a lot more out there that we could discover if scientists would buck the trend. FTL and a whole slew of other shit is possible if folks would buck the trend.

>>6674239
>paper link is in the article
>inb4 but muh direct link
>inb4 I can't Google a title
Fucking pic related.

how does this prove .999999=1? I don't see the connection.

>>6674244
where do you people come from?

>>6674234
>No it wasn't proven. If two groups saying yes was proof the superconductor ring thing would be sound, but it's long dead.
>implying anyone would tell the plebs in a way that can't be decried
The tards already fucked up one planet and worse sullied the good title of "nerd" by adopting our mannerisms and personality quirks and anti-social tendencies - they stole our identity. No self respecting nerd would allow them to follow us to space. Get a grip on reality.

>>6674229
>Holy fuck learn a theory before you try to evaluate the experimental results.
pretty sure "we modified one of the experimental units so it should have been non-functional" is pretty clear language no matter what the experimental theory being tested is

It is a very interesting puzzle and I'm looking forward to smarter people than me figuring out what's actually going on. But you would have to be a lot dumber than me to think what's going on is that we overturned conservation of momentum, just based on some unexplained readings and no real theoretical explanation.

>>6674240
i dont get it, is this some kind of reverse name calling? its supposedly derived from theories that it contradicts, how is that not bullshit?

>>6674229
>>6674235
>>6674236
>>6674240
>>6674242
>>6674245
>>6674251

What's with the NASA cocksucking and shitposting?
I checked the wired link and the nasa.gov link which was just a blank pdf.

All you need to do is post the math(preferably a link to a tex sheet) and fuck off back to reddit.

>>6674215
>but nobody really took those seriously
That's because China plagiarizes half its scientific publications and forges the other half.

I would sooner trust a physics paper from Tajikistan than China.

>all these people saying "read the paper"
What paper? There is no paper. There's a conference abstract with no details.

>>6674233
>if what they are trying to do didnt contradict current physics.
Uh what? Are you saying if an experiment proved that current physics is fundamentally flawed you wold be bothered by it because their hypothesis included them implying that current physics are flawed?

Please tell me no because you sound more religious than rational right now.

>>6674233
>didnt contradict current physics
That's the whole fucking point of the scientific method you fucktard

>>6674259
kek

>>6674259
It's reddit fags and nasa shills.

>>6674235
This reminds me of that moron who was spouting the "end times" bullshit back in 2012. He had convinced all of his loyal followers to give up everything they owned and follow him around.

I wanted to find some of them and bet them $1000 that they were wrong. Like, "Hey, you can't really lose, because if you're wrong, it's not the end of the world, after all." And further, "If you don't take my bet, then I guess you don't really believe in this, do you?"

I could have made a lot of money. But I couldn't bring myself to do it because I'm just not that mean. Imagine the look of pain in their eyes as they were handing over that $1000...

>>6674259
This.

Post math, not angry shitposting trying to defend NASA

>>6674213
>Q factor of the material

>>6674252
>pretty sure "we modified one of the experimental units so it should have been non-functional" is pretty clear language no matter what the experimental theory being tested is
Do you not understand how to place things in context? The modifications involved geometric deformation in a thruster designed primarily to produce the intended effects via Q-factor differences. There wasn't enough radiation retransmitted after each collision with the wall for the deformations they used to have any effect.
>tards in charge of interpreting experiments in relation to theory
You could AT LEAST take the time to learn the theory before parroting shit with no idea how to interpret it in context.

>>6674270
>You could AT LEAST take the time to learn the theory
Post the maths behind it, plebbit fag

>>6674270
And where is that context, post your source.

>>6674270
Are you seriously trying to say that it makes sense that the unit modified not to produce thrust, produces thrust, because it was modified to produce thrust?

Are you really dumb or just terrible at reading?

>>6674257
>All you need to do is post the math(preferably a link to a tex sheet) and fuck off back to reddit.
Holy fuck you people are retarded:
>open article
>click links to papers
>4chan says it thinks links to nasa.gov are spam for some reason
>good luck Ebola

>>6674234
What if the theory's wrong, but they were on to something with the application?

>>6674269
standing waves bro.

Q factor.

>>6674257
>not having a NASA gold account

>>6674269
In this context: reflectance vs absorbance of radiation. They are using stuff that absorbs the energy and turns it into heat, an ideal (perfect) thruster would reflect the energy back and fourth continuously until the shifts and wavelength and phase either canceled out or tunneled through the walls of the container.

>>6674280
>of the material
Do you know what a Q factor is?

>>6674276
Anyone else having problems with
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf
?

Lets just stop posting until the reddit fag cites a working source

>>6674276
>click links to papers
Yes, the papers that don't exist.

The article links to a presentation abstract. That has about as much evidentiary weight as a playground rumor.

>>6674273
>Post the maths behind it, plebbit fag
>implying I would give a pop-sci faggot the material to sound smart in a crowd
>ever
Read+understand the papers and agree or don't and disagree, people deserve to know if the person they are speaking to is a tard quickly enough not to waste time with them.

>>6674278
By dumb luck? Doubtful but remains a possible outcome. Given the issues highlighted in this experiment better evidence is needed to say it's working.

>>6674233
>guise its not okay if it doesn't perfectly agree with the current laws of physics

The science itself is uncertain, but the fact that results are coming out of it cannot be denied. If reality disagrees with physics, then the physics are incorrect or incomplete.

>>6674286
>just trust me, i'm right and you're wrong
and here we see that you're just an armchair science enthusiast, not anyone who actually knows what they're talking about

>>6674284
>>6674285
The links open fine for me - even the NASA one.
>tfw there's actually a conspiracy to keep the tards out of space
>tfw NASA approves of me
Based NASA, based NWO, good luck ebola.

>>6674282
Oh okay, I see what you mean. That isn't a property of the material alone, although it certainly depends on it.

>>6674287
Somehow the idea of "I accidentally the whole space travel" appeals to me.

>>6674291
>implying you aren't bullshitting to get your mental superior to tell you things to parrot and sound super smart and cool
lel

>>6674292
The links work fine for me too. The NASA link isn't a paper and gives zero weight to any argument.

>>6674290
>The science itself is uncertain, but the fact that results are coming out of it cannot be denied.

see

>>6674211

It justifies more testing, but only a fool would take this as a discovery.

>>6674286
>>implying I would give a pop-sci faggot the material to sound smart in a crowd

Yeah, pretty much confirmed that you're a shitposter.

Thread over guys, they have no source.

>>6674296
>The NASA link isn't a paper
First two words after title of the NASA paper:
>This paper

>>6674302
Tard/10

>>6674305
>no maths
This thread is a shitpost, should have linked to papers in the OP

>>6674299
I completely agree. I'm simply stating that we have a blip on the radar that needs to be explained, not buried away because the effect is very small and may disagree with out current understanding of physics.

>>6674305
It's an abstract. It's part of a paper, but not the whole paper.

MATHS FOR YOU DUMB FAGGOTS TOO IMPAIRED TO LOOK FOR THE LINK.

>HURRR IMA DURRR RURRRRDURRREEEEEE

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-3853

>>6674249
/pol/

>>>/pol/33269556

>>6674305
Its not a paper, its just an abstract. The paper is not available.

>>6674197
>and take astronauts to Mars in weeks rather than months.

Isn't this thing producing pathetic amounts of thrust? I'm not sure why that was shoved in the article.

>>6674305
It's a conference abstract. It undergoes no peer review. It's a preview of the talk which will be given at the conference so people can decide whether they want to attend.

>>6674313
Yes, they're from /pol/, it has nothing to do with public schools. Like the ones that educated them.

>>6674312
>paywalled

>>6674317
You don't need lots of thrust for interplanetary travel. (for most orbital maneuvers, actually)

>>6674305
Here's an example of papers.

http://research.google.com/pubs/pub41159.html

http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/41159.pdf

Source: http://research.google.com/

>>6674322
>expecting that there is more to it hidden somewhere

>>6674258
When I said "nobody", I meant nobody. I didn't take them seriously either.

>>6674310
>nasa is blocking you from reading the whole paper
ahahahahaha

>>6674287
>By dumb luck? Doubtful
A fuckton of really relevant stuff got discovered through "dumb luck"

>>6674313

>go to /pol/ thread out of morbid curiosity
>ctrl-f "jew", many results

just making sure everything is still about the jews

ahahaha oh wow

OP is a shitposter from /pol/ that got REKT on /sci/ and is now shitposting thinking that a wired link gives him the all the credibility in the world and got rekt here again
>>>/pol/33270177

OP, kill yourself

Remember to sage.

>>6674319
>Yes, they're from /pol/, it has nothing to do with public schools. Like the ones that educated them.
Faggot, the thread was on /pol/ before /sci/. Everyone knows /sci/ is just for tards seeking homework help - the real scientists, engineers and mathematicians are on /pol/ worrying about Ebola because we actually understand the world around us enough to know ITS FUCKING HAPPENING

Sheeeeit, so one of our most basic concepts in physics isn't actually accurate?

>>6674336
Oh, you have no idea. The ride never ends. I rarely post there I mostly lurk.

>>6674337
/sci/ thread was second

actually /pol/ was first to post this news.
faggot

>>6674317
>Isn't this thing producing pathetic amounts of thrust?

A pathetic amount of thrust * weeks = a shitload of impulse. Chemical rockets can only fire for a few minutes, typically.

>>6674337
That's the first thread >>6674013

Shills already trying to derail threads.
Remember kids, EMD:

-low thrust

-no fuel needed

-tested and working

-extremely high delta-v

-low weight and simple in construction

-still too fucking early to cheer

>>6674318
>it undergoes no peer review
It IS a peer review you dunce!

>>6674348
>-extremely high delta-v
You're retarded. dV, Tsiolkovsky equation, specific impulse etc. don't make any sense in propellant-less systems.

> -tested and working
> -low weight and simple in construction
Brool Story Co.

>>6674348
>-tested and working

Way too early to say that. It would be more accurate to say that it is producing results we don't understand yet.

>>6674353
I meant that there is no peer review for writing the abstract itself. You can write anything you want in an abstract for a conference presentation. Nobody's going to be looking over your shoulder until you're actually giving the presentation.

>>6674348
>-no fuel needed
doesn't it need a power source? as in a source of electricity? or do you just put the microwaves in once and a constant force is produced until you take them out?

>>6674348
You know what else fulfilled all of those requirements? The Dean drive.

You know what turned out to be experimental error and didn't actually work? The Dean drive.

Conservation of momentum is such a crucial idea in physics I'm going to need really rock-solid evidence before I accept that this is real.

>>6674359
Solar cells.

>>6674359
>doesn't it need a power source?
Yes it needs a power source. It's not a fuel though.

>>6674359
solar panels tard

>>6674359
It needs a power source, but no propellant.

>>6674355
>You're retarded. dV, Tsiolkovsky equation, specific impulse etc. don't make any sense in propellant-less systems.
Sure, but there were already retards comparing this to ion drives.

>>6674370
So? That isn't wrong.

>>6674374
Ion drives aren't reactionless.

>>6674370
Which is an OK comparison, because ion drives use very low masses of fuel and produce little thrust. This would be better than an ion drive, but it would also mostly replace ion drives and not anything else.

If the EmDrive's superconducting variant works as well as the (dubious) inventor claims, then you'd be looking at revolutionary thrust numbers.

Only time will tell.

You guys are still bumping this shit thread?
Just fuck off, no source was cited.

>>6674344
Actually, the first thread was on /k/

>>6674390
/pol/ is bumping this thread

>>6674390
>unable to follow links
And the top pleb award goes to.. >>6674390

>>6674376
So? Propulsion can still be compared in terms of practical use. The fax they are different doesn't matter.

>>6674395
>Conference abstract.
>Pop-sci article
>Paywalled article

None of these are sources, fagbot.

>>6674377
>>6674396
The difference does matter. dV is still limited in traditional electrical propulsion. If this thing is working, you can accelerate forever, basically you have unlimited dV here.

Which brings a question, are there any constraints with this type of thruster? You are limited to sub-c velocities with reactive systems, since the closer you are to c the more propellant you need. There must be some catch, otherwise it allows FTL.

>>6674400
Why are you talking about deltaV? That comparison doesn't make sense. Other comparisons between the two are fine.

If this system did work (no evidence of that) there is no reason to believe it can invalidate relativity.

>>6674400

No. Accelerating forever won't get you FTL.

Back to the Future was right. We're still in time for hoverboards and cars.

>>6674400
In order for an object with mass to reach the speed of light it needs infinite acceleration, which we know it impossible. We know this due to special relativity.

>>6674362
>Conservation of momentum is such a crucial idea in physics I'm going to need really rock-solid evidence before I accept that this is real.
someone knows nothing of quantum

>>6674418
if conservation of momentum is wrong, then special relativity might be too

>>6674433
Conservation of momentum is probably not. Normally when someone thinks it is, then they are forgetting something or looking at the wrong reference frame.

It'll be like those superluminal neutrinos from Italy all over again.

>>6674428
>Quantum mechanics doesn't have conservation of momentum.

topest kek.

>>6674197
>try to read article to find out what emdrives are
too fucking long
>try wikipedia
>introduction is 20 lines long
fuck this shit

>>6674317
Tiny amounts of constant force adds up

>>6674273
I'll raise you to post the math behind string theory and present a jar of dark matter to the world.

>>6674447
You're comparing a scientist with an in-depth understanding of and the ability to exploit relativity with a bunch of retards that can take billions of dollars and come up with nothing better than "lets smash stuff together and see how it breaks". Honestly with CERN at the helm we are really fucking lucky to even be alive.

>>6674473
wait so you are actually implying that cern doesnt know what there are doing and do not have an aim. i think you should inform your self a bit more before making that allegation.

>>6674481
>>6674473

4/10 could have been 7/10 if not samefag

>>6674473
Pretty sure the CERN scientists know relativity a fuck lot better than some dude who thinks it allows momentum conservation violation.

Can anyone explain the implications of this to me? What does it do? What would this mean?

>>6674492
It means space flight can be a lot more efficient, because you don't need to carry propellant fuel. You can just use electricity to propel your spacecraft, which saves weight and means long distances take less time to traverse. It's not exactly game-changing, but it's still pretty important.

>>6674362
Lets say this drive works and we don't understand why yet.

Should we just not use it out of pride or should we use it and wait for our understanding to catch up?

>>6674473
NASA is the organisation who announced arsenic life and the superconductive anti-gravity thing (possibly even the same people).

At least CERN had the good sense to announce it as a probable mistake rather than a discovery.

> with an in-depth understanding of and the ability to exploit relativity
And plenty others with the same credentials telling him he's wrong.

>>6674481
This should help put things in perspective (if the numerous beer bottles in the collider, several fails, disregard of theory every bit as mathematically plausible as the ones they hoped for when turning it on thereby risking the entire species, the FTL fuckup, the numerous software glitches, etc): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
>>6674487
pic related
>>6674489
>implying violation of conservation of momentum
You don't understand the theories being discussed ITT well enough to cite things like that.
>>6674497
>implying there are no cover ups

>>6674520
/x/

>>6674496
you're mistaking disbelief due to a lack of sufficient evidence for contrary belief due to ideological reasons

investigators have yet to demonstrate that this device works in a credible way

>>6674520
>thinking that picture means anything at all
shiggy

>>6674520
>pic related

>You don't understand the theories being discussed ITT well enough to cite things like that.
Pure deflection.

>>6674497
>And plenty others with the same credentials telling him he's wrong.
This is what you pop-sci faggots don't understand:
Experimental data > theory
>fucking always

>>6674536
>Experimental data > theory
experimental data means absolutely nothing without a theory to give it context

>>6674541
>experimental data means absolutely nothing without a theory to give it context
>implying you can decry actual data with theory

>>6674531
how much does institutional culture hold science back?

Dark matter is a huge clusterfuck of an example as it's a cure in search of a disease.

Compared to you saying:
>you're mistaking disbelief due to a lack of sufficient evidence for contrary belief due to ideological reasons
dark matter is the exact opposite of this scenario where the math doesn't match reality so scientists have made up something in order to preserve the integrity of the "scientific community".

We reactionless thrust now?

>>6674543
>b-but the idea that the earth goes around the sun is means absolutely nothing without theory to give it context. We all know god made the earth the middle of the universe

>>6674536
>Experimental data > theory

I agree. So why did the null article not perform as expected showing either the test is flawed or the guy is wrong?

>>6674552
You just compared an empirical fact with a bastardization of a theory and did it in reverse. You literally proved my point.

>>6674552
The earth going round the sun is a theory, not data. Moron.

>>6674543
not just implying, asserting.

for example, theory told us that the FTL neutrinos were probably measurement error - and that turned out to be the case.

>>6674546
institutional culture does tend to resist paradigm shifts, but it has never held out indefinitely. there's always been scientists with nothing to lose willing to push the field in a new direction.

this has no bearing on the current discussion, though, because that's all a step later in the process. believe it or not, i'd love for a reactionless EM drive to exist and work and fit within our theories - but I don't want it bad enough to assume that a handful of flawed tests are solid evidence that the effect is real.

if we investigate further and discover that the effect is indeed real and not measurement error (for one, I'd like to know why their null unit showed thrust), then we can start talking about whether we need to modify the theory

>>6674560
>implying I wasn't giving your argument credence

>>6674536
>Experimental data > theory

That's true, but not in the way you want it to be true. It's true that you can't pretend your instruments say one thing when they say another. It's not true that you have to assume they are accurate, nor that you are actually measuring what you thought you were.

If you get a result that contradicts theory, the correct response is to stop and try to figure out what is happening, not to immediately declare the theory wrong.

>>6674557
There are two labs showing it worked and 1 showing it didn't. The one where it didn't replaced the geometrical modifications with q-factor modifications of a straight cylinder because "lel we so sciencey we understand this guys theory better than him and if it works this will do the same thing" and it worked (with far less thrust because the q-factor was so fucking high on one side there is no way it had standing waves repeating more than 1 cycle each), then the fucktards tried to add a geometrical deformation and it still worked (because the geometrical deformation can only even stop it when the entire cavity is designed on geometrical variations instead of q-factor variations). They actually did TWO null tests by the way, the one with the geometrical deformations and one without a load (replaced with a counter-weight with all the same properties of the cavity mass-wise) and it didn't work - just as should have happened. The proper way to do a null-test with an actual cavity in their configuration would have been to use the same q-factor for materials on both ends of the symmetric cylinder. But of course you'd have to have looked at the experimental setup, understood the theory and used your brain to tell that so go ahead and say how "lul muh momentum" or something equally fucking retarded. You worthless fucking shame on the scientific community (even if you aren't a part of it).

>>6674581
>with q-factor modifications of a straight cylinder...
[citation needed]

If you want to claim they did it wrong I'm going to need a source.

>>6674585
Read the fucking link and it's citations faggot. Holy fuck it's like you've never tried to do anything without someone holding your hand before.

>>6674590
I've read the link. It doesn't mention that.

As suspected you're full of shit and are just making shit up. My question stands.

Why is everyone in this tread going full out? Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? After all the name-calling, how many rigid results can you expect on /sci/ itself. If you can read or even produce such articles, then good for you. Why (and how) would you want to prove it on /sci/?
>But science works by being critical
/sci/ =/= science. It is a board about science and almost never have I seen present-day research being even partially presented and discussed on /sci/. Moreover, imagine how any seminar would be like if scientists were 'critical' in the /sci/-sense.

Wait what, for real? THIS is how it's supposed to work? "Cones are magically exempt from conservation of momentum"?

Wow. You have to be retarded to believe this.

>>6674601
>I've read the link. It doesn't mention that.
Read the fucking citations in the link faggot - there's nearly half a dozen of them.

>>6674637
would these be the paywalled citations none of us can read?

>>6674637
No, I'm not going on a wild goose chase. Cite your own claims retard.

>>6674609
Dipshit. Conservation of momentum is based on mechanical principles. Light travels, and this might shock you a bit, at the speed of light - meaning there are relativistic effects at play. Photons of different energy levels carry different amounts of momentum (shocker I know). Phase velocity and group velocity may differ resulting in net forces in opposition to the direction of travel (another shocker, I know I know). When you add all that stuff up into an asymmetrical cone with parallel plates on each end you get a bunch of photons changing wavelength (and thereby energy) at the edges of the walls, setting up standing waves and negative group velocities along particular vectors and other interesting and very fucking predictable things that mean you get thrust. Conservation laws are not violated just because the newtonian-tier effects would indicate they do - science has come A LONG FUCKING WAY since newton.

>>6674643
>can't read
>calls people retard
Toppest lel.

>>6674645
>Fields don't have conservation of momentum.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-Edition-David-Griffiths/dp/0321856562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406848661&sr=8-1&keywords=introduction+to+electrodynamics

>>6674647
>photons changing wavelength (and thereby energy)
And intensity. If the wavelength is changing so must the intensity of the light field. So how does one effect win over?

>>6674656
meant for:
>>6674645

>>6674645
>When you add all that stuff up into an asymmetrical cone with parallel plates on each end you get a bunch of photons changing wavelength (and thereby energy) at the edges of the walls, setting up standing waves and negative group velocities along particular vectors and other interesting and very fucking predictable things that mean you get thrust.

Disputed. The original paper proposing such a drive contains basic failures.

http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf

>>6674294
Well ancient Humans invented electricity back in Babylon and the steam engine in Egypt, they were just too stupid to put them to good use.

>>6674326
Papers?
I see only pixels!
You sir are a huckster and a fraud!

>>6674336
>ctrl+f faggot
HOLY SHIT FAGGOTS CONTROL THE WORLD

>>6674768
gtfo semantics.

>>6674394
/pol/ is the jew of 4chan, everything that happens is being done by /pol/ apparently.

>>6674776
So if /pol/ are the jews of 4chan, then everything that happens is done by them :^)

>>6674779
:^)

>>6674779
Epic.

>>6674520
lol a project that size and you're surprized about beer cans lying around, failures, glitches and other fuckups down the road. Shit like that always happens, that's just human nature.

>>6674804
That's what you get for picking up Slavs outside the Ikea.

>>6674211
>>and people are treating this as evidence

Harold Sonny 'Warp Drive' White, is treating this as evidence.

>>6674645
>Light travels, and this might shock you a bit, at the speed of light - meaning there are relativistic effects at play
This might shock you a bit, but conservation of momentum is still valid in special and even general relativity.

So we could put these in submarines and send them to space?

GET HYPE, FAGGOTS

>>6674197

the governments of countries waste money on sci fi bullshit that won't ever work. try funding businesses that do USEFUL things for people and do innovative things instead of fantasy land shit like this.

hell, there's a lot of shit going on in the world that needs immediate attention right now and these scientists and engineers are off playing star trek. get them working on shit that actually matters ... there's plenty of manufacturing industries that could use improvement, there's plenty of medical companies that need to come up with new treatments. but they do this instead

>>6674653
>implying conservation of momentum is anything like what you would expect it to be outside of newtonian physics
Look up the ADM electron model faggot - everything is conserved AND energy can be effectively created and destroyed.

>>6674656
>>6674658
The change is what is being exploited in conjunction with the group and phase velocities relative to eachother. It's a closed system and in an ideal state the waves will keep bouncing back and fourth forever - of course there are losses so that won't happen but the point is that while it is closed off there will be asymmetrical patterns to the different properties of the waveforms inside the cavity resulting in thrust.

>>6674677
Here's the original paper, faggot:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

>>6674804
That's not Human nature. That's the result of too many tards in science - they give degrees out like candy these days. Only about 0.001% of the population have ever been fit to hold a degree or participate in higher education - that percentage didn't change just because our birthrate shot way the fuck up.

>>6675129
See>>6675545

>go to nasa site
>click on "full article"
>full article isn't full article
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf
>"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust.
>"Specifically, one test article contained internal
physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article)."
>Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the
quantum vacuum virtual plasma.

All of my wat; So they made a nonworking version, which still worked, therefore luminiferous quantum vacuum aether?

>>6675216
>there's a lot of shit going on in the world that needs immediate attention right now
Yeah, like making space travel possible so the Humans among the species can escape while the plebs have the moon tossed at them to ensure they won't follow along. This is the greatest possible use of resources on Earth and a gauranteed way to evolve Humanity by at least 40-50 IQ points.

>>6675554
>regurgitating muh leddit pop-sci
Faggot learn the experimental setup and the theory before you think that discredits anything. See >>6674581

>>6675558
>before you think that discredits anything.

That modified the experiment to make sure it didn't work, yet it still did, this implies that there's some systematic error in their design.

>>6674213
So, uh, if they wanted to prove it worked why didn't they build a non-shitty version then?

>>6674581
>The one where it didn't ...blahblah...and it worked...blahblah...and it still worked...

Soooo you are saying the one experiment where it didnt work did work? Also punctuation, especially the period, is your friend. Use it.

>>6675565
>That modified the experiment to make sure it didn't work, yet it still did, this implies that there's some systematic error in their design.
True. They used variable Q factor materials for the sides instead of using the same Q factor all around and using variable geometry to induce the effect then tried to break it by adding variable geometry. The whole test seems reminiscent of the mach-lorentz thruster test done by LLNL where rather than testing the device the guy had built they tried to grow a custom ceramic via vapor deposition to go all out with a hockeypuck sized ~300W model that didn't even have the gaps and stiff structural supported required to dampen the vibrations between layers and avoid capacitive effects during contraction/expansion cycles then calling it a fail when it didn't work. Granted it seems obvious why they would seek to test the theory as they understand it and hope for greater gains in the process but at the same time it makes much more sense to start with something that someone else said would work and let the design evolve from there. Still the only thing that really "failed" was their attempt to make the thing stop working (when inducing the geometrical abberations inside the cavity, the version that just leaked the microwave radiation out the side failed as expected).

>>6675570
Probably the result of testing different configurations trying to improve on the design while testing whether or not an effect was there to begin with. The original design of a cavity of uniform Q can only really be improved by changing the Q (ideally be using superconductive walls) whereas variable-Q materials on the walls would feasibly allow for something you can grow in ridiculously small layers adding on eachother and fit them into arbitrary configurations at the same time. The existing models have the pitfall of being pretty bulky (about the size of a small microwave) because they are based on the internal geometry of the cavity and would require at least a liquid nitrogen cooling system to reach their peak potential. A variable-Q version would still be lossier but would have the potential to operate at room temperature.

>>6675579
The "issue" is that they built two experiments that were supposed to fail. One of them just leaked the RF radiation out the side of the device and it did fail. One of them involved sticking a bunch of shit inside the RF cavity and it didn't fail (that is, it still produced thrust). The result is that at most their understanding of the underlying theory is off, but there is definitely an effect generating thrust unrelated to abberations in the experimental setup.

motherfucking magnets

>>6675619
>Create powerful reactionless drive.
>Attach drive to ends of rotor blades.
>Rube Goldberg at it's finest.

10/10 made me kek.

>>6674467
Not him, but it's really just solutions to the wave equation on a supersymmetric Pointcar<span class="math">\'e[/spoiler] algebra with enough compactified dimensions to cancel the central charge.

>>6674520
biggest shitposter on the planet. gtfo kid

>>6674609

I'm confused why this is contentious... If I fire microwaves directionally out of a box, I get thrust. This is because the microwaves have momentum and the box picks up the negative of the momentum they carry away. What is different about this that is getting people excited? Is it just that NASA engineers can't into very basic physics?

>>6675657
Ohhhhh, the ends are closed. So basically, more microwaves are tunneling out one end than the other because of how the wavefunction interferes and people don't realize it's no different than shooting photons out of the fucking thing.

>>6675657
>Doesn't understand conservation of momentum
>Calls other people idiots

Here I think you need this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

>>6675663
Wow, the shitposters are slow today. Already fixed my mistake, doesn't change the conclusion
see >>6675661

>>6675661
Tunnelling still conserves momentum.

>>6675673
...yes, but it allows photons to escape, the "impossible space drive" thus picks up momentum opposite that of the escaped photons. If the photons tunnel preferentially in one direction (almost assuredly true), then you get an apparent thrust.

>>6675682
>Agrees momentum is conserved
>thus picks up momentum

You do know that conservation of momentum means that the total momentum change is 0, right?

>If the photons tunnel preferentially in one direction

You see as the wave impinges on a potential barrier part of it is reflected back and part of it is transmitted, this means that the total momentum change is 0.

>(almost assuredly true)
I have no idea how you've come to this conclusion.

>>6675644
BTFO by >>6674520

>>6675661
>>6675673
>>6675665
>>6675682
Is it internet day at the tard center or something? This is based on relativistic concepts, not shooting photons out the back (as should have been obvious by the scale of fucking thrust they are getting out of the things). It's basically a Woodward effect thruster implemented purely with RF rather than a bunch of shaking shit.

>>6675695
>tard center

So can anyone actually see the actual full text at arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2014-4029 ?

>>6675973
not until someone feels like kicking forward the bucks to pay for access

>>6675991
Someone's gotta be at a uni that subscribes.

>>6675973
>>6675991
>>6676039
I can load the full article (21 pages), if other people aren't able to access it I'd be happy to reupload the paper somewhere else for /sci/ to read.

Looks like an interesting read.

>>6676283
DO IT!

>>6676288
https://mega.co.nz/#!9oFExQ7Q!yTGBekZiZ2EvEzYiKOmF_wBqmDnsAalCrM5jEIZ4ExM

Here you go, let me know if it doesn't work

>>6676304
Nice! Thanks!

>>6676283
Can you post them in thread?

>>6676304
>pdf
Isn't that able to be posted on 4chan? Or is that only /tg/?

>>6676304
Doesn't work for me

>>6676327
The download or the pdf?

>>6676332
The download

>>6676341
Copy the link, past it in your address bar, go to it

It'll load up to a screen like this.

Click download, as soon as it's done it'll download to your computer.

>>6676304

This reads like a lab report written by an intern, that somehow got NASA stamped on it.

>>6676534
Papers usually are written by interns.

>>6676534
>>6676542
>Meanwhile at the NASA intern office
A bullshit paper!
I'll publish it!!
NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW!!!

>>6676534
It is unbelievably shoddy. There is no statistics and they spend longer discussing fanciful missions than they do addressing sources of error. Additionally the null article produced as much thrust as the normal one, pointing to error rather than eureka.

The worst part is that most of the plots appear to be taken from photographs of the screen showing the data.

>>6676555
>muh presentation and fail null test
The null test has been discussed repeatedly ITT, it's not a factor due to experimental setup.

>>6676612
Explain.

I don't buy the cheap dismissals we've heard ITT. Many of them turned out to be wrong, spouting nonsense about how the null was constructed which the paper refutes.

>>6674197
So whats the final consensus, /sci/?

>>6676762
The paper is a mess and not peer-reviewed. More information is needed.

>>6674234
Aren't they three? The original scientist, then the chinese and now NASA?

>>6674197
So, this will be the future of not just deep-space exploration, but just about anything that used a rocket?

Fighter jets will be able to reach Mach 10 (not that we could withstand it)?

>>6676762
>So whats the final consensus, /sci/?
No, NASA didn't "validate" the "impossible space drive".

The test detected 1/1000th of the thrust detected in previous tests used to justify this one, and they showed up in both the real test article and the control sample designed to produce no thrust.

The guy in charge of it is such an irredeemable crackpot that he's still insisting that it works.

>>6674305
>>6674318
>>6674316
>>6674310
>>6674307
You fucking retards know why there's no fucking paper? Because NASA knows jack shit about hot this works, it's just a technical report, reporting that the experiment gave results
There's no math because they don't know the math, the only math available is the one from the guy who created the drive, which isn't sound

>>6674317
You probably can get rid of a lot of weight this way, only a classic chemical thruster to get out of earth and then one of these drives feeding from solar panels/RTGC for the rest of the trip and maneuvers
It probably would need less gravity assist

>>6674497
The difference here it's that it's not just NASA
It's the chinese and the inventor too
Though it probably will have something that will make it shit or unusable, too good to be true

>>6675216
Daily reminder that NASA pretty much killed all their missions due to budget cuts
Daily reminder that this shit is stupidly cheap, that's why it is so controversial

>>6676326
Only tg, the rest of 4chan is shit

>>6676794
This isn't peer-reviewed. It is raw lab results from some who works at NASA. It doesn't carry any weight.

Note that the Chinese team failed to see the error in the original paper by the inventor, made the same mistake and miraculously, still got what they predicted. The leader of the Chinese group later claimed she couldn't discuss it, because of military applications.

There is much to little credible information.;

Sooooo, we Star Wars now?


No but seriously, this is like, one of the greatest discoveries of all time if proven legit, right?

Basically build a the space version of a ballistic missile submarine with one of these on the end and youre set.

>>6676831

This is unlikely to obsolete rockets, as we still need a LOT of thrust to get things out of the atmosphere and through the denser layers of space debris safely. Once you're to MEO though this lets you travel between the planets for pretty much free, assuming you have either a large solar array or a nuke plant. A one-way trip to Mars becomes easy (but again, getting back up from mars you'll need a rocket).

You want to have a space probe visit each moon of Jupiter? easy-peasy. This thing could probably hop a probe between any two of them in a matter of days with few constraints on timing. In comparison a plasma drive would be heavily limited in what transfer orbits are possible due to it's tiny thrust, and take a LOT longer.

Could I just hop in one of these, wait a few months/years, then get picked up by much more advanced humans?

I'd personally love to have a few copies of my hard drive, some nice shielding, and then accelerate to near c and leave everything behind. Fuck you guys.

>>6676912
Even BETTER: could I head toward the sun, so the solar panels make me go faster and as I get closer to the sun, GO EVEN FASTER.

Maybe even make a slight course correction of 1 degree antiperpendicular and head out at a high velocity

>>6676788
This. There's an effect that's been demonstrated but they aren't sure how it works. It's probably the mach-lorentz thruster in microwave form instead of a bunch of shit bouncing around.

>>6676326
>Isn't that able to be posted on 4chan? Or is that only /tg/?
>>6676802
>Only tg, the rest of 4chan is shit
Pretty sure joot just doesn't want to get suicided like aaron swartz because a bunch of faggots posted papers to his site.

>>6674197
>30-50 micro-newtons
>micro-newtons

>>6674779
>>6674776
/pol/ shitposts absolutely EVERYWHERE!
... and they have the nerve to ask why they are so universally despised.

>>6677152
I could see a lot of anarchist cookbooks being posted frequently if pdf was supported on /b/, /k/, or /pol/. /sci/ should be acceptable though if /tg/ is.

>>6677262

>>6677859
faggot/10

>>6677886
pol/10

bump

Anybody seen this?
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

Those references. Pic related.

Could you use this with a small nuclear reactor?

>>6678217
You can't use it w/o a small nuclear reactor.

Please tell me nobody actually believes this will work

>>6678231
What if it does?

>>6678247
Then I will be too excited to care I was wrong.
But as it stands it's bogus.

>>6678250
I think most of us are leaning on it being bogus.

>>6678250
>Then I will be too excited to care I was wrong.
So you'd forget all about being a faggot and be able to live with yourself?
>But as it stands it's bogus.
That's faggot-talk. Take your pop-sci "it's not science if it's not something I can buy on a shelf" bullshit back to leddit.

>>6678256
>I think most of us are leaning on it being bogus.
Regardless the ONLY honorable action that goes around saying it's bogus without ever having conducted tests themselves to say such a thing if it turns out not to be bogus is to sudoku. If it's not your field and you have no intention to contributing to the field one way or another you really don't have a right to speak on it.

>>6678259
> Take your pop-sci "it's not science if it's not something I can buy on a shelf" bullshit back to leddit.
That's pretty much the opposite of the 4chan-reddit dynamic
but keep pushing how you think a website you've never been to works.
It's hilarious

>>6678272
>such a feable-minded attempt to get someone to admit to visiting the butthole of the interwebs
Leddit-tier tard rhetoric detected. You're out of your element pleb.

>>6678285
>the butthole of the interwebs
you mean 4chan right?
Because it was litterally known as the asshole of the internet far before reddit was even a thing.

>>6676831
It's unlikely that it's real since it runs contrary to so much known physics, all we have so far is grounds for further experiments and replication attempts. Remember that cold fusion produced plenty of apparently positive results too, and the FTL neutrino thing took quite a while to nail down to being a problem with a cable.

If it is real, then it's fairly revolutionary and opens up new areas of physics but as >>6676902 says it would only really be useful for probes and other long-term deep space stuff since it has very low thrust. You can think of it as an improvement on the ion thruster that can run indefinitely because it doesn't need reaction mass. 25 years or so from now, interstellar probes travelling at a good fraction of C could become a conceivable although still extremely expensive project.

>>6678205
He never considers the forces on the sides of the cavity when clearly, they do not cancel due to the tapering.

No wonder people take the piss out of this, it's idiotic.

>>6678287
>ledditard detected

>>6678320
> implying you enough about reddit to know what that means.

>>6678289
>since it runs contrary to so much known physics
It doesn't. It just runs contrary to your pop-sci understanding of physics because pop-sci physics is limited to things people have explicitely explained to you simply enough for you to paraphrase and parrot related memes. It can actually be explained by both relativistic AND quantum mechanical effects and at most (assuming not just an extreme flaw with the concept of geometrical abberations in a variable-Q cavity, which itself is an absurd concept for any practical usage since the energy conversion:loss ratio scales inversely with Q-factor and you can only design an ideal thruster with either theory with superconducting materials) a flaw with the quantum mechanical version of the explaination of the effect.

>>6678325
>you reak of ledditard
That's all I need to know about ledditards to identify them.

>>6678325
>implying enough is a verb

>>6678335
Sounds very scientific.
You should publish it

>>6678352
*
>implying you know enough about reddit to know what that means
4chan doesn't let me edit posts and the post window is tiny

>>6678361
>4chan doesn't let me edit posts and the post window is tiny
>my
>suggesting lack of editing is a problem
>because you're used to having to edit your post to keep from looking retarded
>because you care about looking retarded
>because you are in fact retarded
>such leddit
>many grammar
>much overuse of greentext
>wow

>tfw it would allow for a ~30 year trip to the nearest star system
Imagine being sent on a 30 or 60 year exploratory voyage to another solar system and then learning that Earth was destroyed in a nuclear apocalypse halfway through your journey. Yay for the future!

>>6678331
You're throwing word salad at a criticism. What pun said has no more meaning than what he said. This idea has been critiqued numerous times by experts in the field who state it does not agree with conservation of momentum. If you believe that is wrong fine, but don't pretend simply claims otherwise is proof that it conserves momentum.

The original proposal is crap. The effect of the cone walls was not considered and was not shown to be zero.

>>6674229
When you talk of Q factors, is it like the Q parameter in a filter? Some kind of cavity that resonates at a very narrow band?

>>6678380
Daily reminder that it would take 1 solid meter of lead shielding to provide the equivalent radiation protection of the Earth's atmosphere (without even accounting for the effects of the magnetic field).
Daily reminder that NASA has no sustainable method to recycle air and instead they use electrolysis of water that then gets blown overboard and O2 candles to generate O2, to say nothing of the shit vapor disposal and food processes otherwise.
Daily reminder that the Biosphere 2 project required 3.1 acres for 8 people and only lasted 6 months before they had to open the doors for fresh air because it would take about 1 acre of plant life to sustain the animals required to maintain it and a single Human.
Daily reminder that propulsion is a very small piece of the puzzle that is colonization of other worlds.
Daily reminder you're all a bunch of faggots with no grasp of reality naval gazing rather than contributing to even a basic understanding of what is required to reach space.

>>6678379
sure is projecting in here.
I would have added a *correction earlier if I cared about looking retarded.
I only correct my posts when someone shows that can't follow what I was saying.

what country is that gif from. shit's hilarious

>>6678382
>What you* said
>criticised*
>claiming* otherwise

It's apparently too late for me to discuss this. I'm sure the thread will be here in the morning and you'll have thrown some more technobabble at the problem without actually discussing physics.

If you're half as smart as you pretend to be I'm sure you can look at the inventors paper already posted and add the effect on the sides of the cone for yourself.

>>6678382
>terms this faggot doesn't understand
>word salad
Not even going to bother with the rest of your post, give up pop-sci and /wrists, it's the only solution to your level of tard.

>>6678384
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor
An ideal Q-factor material for these devices would be a perfect superconductor as it wouldn't absorb anything (beyond insignificant surface effects) and would keep the waves bouncing around inside the cavity. In the EMDrive the energy is only converted into thrust when the waves bounce off a wall and set up beneficial group/phase velocities and energy shifts in the waves themselves, everything else balances out to zero thrust. The relativistic version of the theory describing it makes infinitely more sense than the quantum one because it basically means you can describe the whole thing the same way as a mach-lorentz thruster just with RF instead of vibrating capacitors.

>>6678389
>projecting
>muh pop rhetorical skillz
Wow. Didn't think you could get any more ledditarded, but you did.

>>6678388
Daily reminder that you have autism :^)

>>6674234
Experiment ALWAYS trumps theory.

so attach 10000000 of these to a space shuttle and we have enough thrust for a starship

>>6678389
You're bad enough, you're dumb enough, and doggone it, nobody likes you.

>>6678438
The inventor said the next step for the device would be to go with a superconducting cavity with which you could get a straight RF-->thrust conversion (aside from cooling costs of the superconducting cavity). With that you could life a car with about the power of 4 microwave ovens.

>>6678445
Stupid question: Isn't that a health hazard? I don't like the thought of being bombarded with micro waves every time I walk across the street.

>>6678449
Technically if the relativistic theory is correct you'd be bombarded by gravinertial radiation and since nobody has ever measured it's effects on the Human body it's likely to be perfectly safe. You're already being bombarded by microwaves indoors and out (and not just from leaky microwaves either - cell towers, ezpass systems, wifi networks and radar [military and civilian stuff like weather] all contribute to microwave radiation). The only real protection is MuMetal (don't cheap out and go for tinfoil or aluminum, they won't save you).

>>6676788
tl;dr it's the first day something actually is taken seriously and nobody knows why the fuck it works, only that it works

>>6678391
I understands you fine, you just aren't saying anything of weight.

Thanks for proving me right. I'm now quite sure you're to pop-sci faggot in here.

1 more for 404

>>6678474
>gravinertial radiation

Ah, this thread really has decayed into nonsense. This doesn't mean anything.

>>6678478
Maybe they should start experimenting on that schaumberger stuff. Who knows.

>>6678485
Look you dumb fucker, conservation of momentum doesn't get violated when are you dealing with this stuff. Look up the ADM electron model.

>>6678495
Read: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration-ebook/dp/B00BLS4VJG
The guy has most of the papers in it freely available on the web, just without the in-depth explainations of them.

>>6678504
If there is nothing technical on it then it still doesn't mean anything. It's made up, probably pseudoscience.

>>6678512
Aside from the fact the EMDrive has now been confirmed by labs in 3 nations with no failures to reproduce the effect the Woodward effect has likewise been confirmed by three major (and unrelated) labs in the US. The fact Neil Disgrace Tyson and Mitchu Cocku haven't broken it down into tard-speak for you doesn't make it pseudoscience, it just makes you incapable of understanding any of the math behind it or even taking in experimental results and gauging them for yourself. You are an incompetent and the world would be better without you.

>>6678519
>Implying you understand it
Embarrassing.

>>6678524
>grabbing at straws this badly

>>6678528
OK, so explain how it works in a scientifically rigorous way.

>>6678532
The papers are freely available online. I'm not going to contribute to the pop-sci plague causing illiterates to emulate intellect well enough to pass them and in conjunction their plethora of fucktarded ideas onto the masses. Read them if you are genuinely interested, don't if you are just out to sound smart. Either way we don't really have anything else to discuss because this thread will 404 by the time you've read them, if you even have any intention to do so. Just know that if you continue to discuss the topic claiming there is no logical explaination for it without even reading the papers describing how it works you are probably too ignorant to really comprehend how ignorant you are, enjoy your bliss.

>>6678519
>3 labs
This one isn't peer reviewed or completed and there are doubts about the Chinese result as they didn't spot a mistake in the original paper and still got the results they expected. Now the Chinese group won't answer questions.
I'd call it unconfirmed.

Unlike you I have actually looked over the proposal and I don't agree with it. I agree with the question experts in the field raised. You ignore this and continue to regurgitate what you read on a news website.

So again. The original proposal fails to calculate the effect of the walls.

>>6678540
>This one isn't peer reviewed or completed
They are part of the peer review process retard, they confirmed it.

>>6678543
No they aren't. This is independent verification. Those verifications need to be peer reviewed themselves.

>>6678539
So explain what the papers say if you understand it. I read Shawyer's paper already, it's gibberish. None of it connects to his machine. This is what the scientists who have actually read it understand. You are not a scientist, nor have you understood the paper or read it. You are just a faggot.

>>6678549
>implying you can peer review without independent verification
>implying that's not part of the peer review process
Wow, you've just nailed "peer review" down to nothing more than paying for a journal article.

>>6678554
This isn't about my understanding of it, it's about your inability to bother with the material unless someone explains it to you. Also, fuck Shawyer's paper - I gave you the link to a book on the subject by someone infinitely more talented mathematically and better suited to related the wide-ranging theories to one another. Look up Woodward's papers if you want an explaination for the effect. Shawyer's work can be described either relativistically or quantum mechanically based on what we know thus far (his explainations for it are mostly absurd though) - the Woodward papers will detail the relativistic version (and in a way also the quantum version but it is in a much more round-about way). Shawyer has experimental data, the Chinese team have experimental data and NASA has experimental data all saying there is an effect - Shawyer speculated on what the effect was but without anywhere near the rigor Woodward went through to explain it (though Woodward developed completely different types of devices to exploit the effect). You have some nerve to not bother with papers then proclaim yourself capable of sighting a scientist or non-scientist on the interwebs. You are queen of the faggots.

>>6678557
You can peer review without independent verification. The original test was peer reviewed. It's not a part of the peer review process. Do you seriously think reviewers set out the same experiment and test each part of the paper? No.

You don't seem to know much about science and you are still sidestepping the problem I highlighted.

>>6678539
Y'know, everyone ITT wants this to be real, we're not part of some conspiracy to preserve current scientific dogma at all costs. We just don't want it so badly that we're willing to overlook all the difficult questions it poses about why the effect hasn't been incidentally observed before, in highly sensitive experiments that it would be reasonable to expect would be affected by it.

Once we're a few independent replications down the road, with experiments that address the known issues with the current ones e.g. NASA not performing it in a vacuum (presumably due to the thruster not being vacuum rated), then we can start to allow ourselves to get excited, not before. Even then, it's possible that what's actually been discovered is a new way of getting erroneous readings from test instruments, although that could still be some interesting new physics.

>>6678554
BTFO by >>6678566

>>6678574
>NASA not performing it in a vacuum
They did.

>>6678579
They performed it in a sealed vacuum chamber, thus avoiding air current interference, but it was at ambient atmospheric pressure. The only reason I can see why they would have done that is if if they believed evacuation risked causing a structural failure of the sealed thruster.

>>6677886
/pol/IDF pls go