/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7283483

/sci/ has as many idiots as any other board (more?).

So if a thing is bullshit (overunity) you'll find true believers here. If something is bulletproof (moon landing), you'll find genuine doubters here.

Add to that mix trolls trolling as believers and doubters, and trolls trolling those trolls.

All of this added up means that /sci/'s opinion generally isn't worth anything.

And all that said, I think emdrive is bunk. I think that measuring a change in weight in order to measure thrust is generally a satisfactory method, but when the measurement you get suggests conservation of momentum has been broken, it's time to suspect the method is not sound enough.

If they put one in space and it actually works, I'll eat my words and be vocal in admitting I was wrong to dismiss it. But for now I'm dismissing it.

>>7283536
then why hasn't the rest of the world dismissed it yet? why is continuing to be tested on.

I agree mostly with the idea that this is bull because of your reasons. However a lot of people more qualified than myself seem to think it is worth building and testing these things.

>>7283919

>then why hasn't the rest of the world dismissed it yet?

most of the world has, except a handful of people inside NASA testing their own version and trying to crunch the numbers such that the device is possible from a theoretical standpoint

>>7283919
>then why hasn't the rest of the world dismissed it yet? why is continuing to be tested on.

Because the potential is so great, and testing hasn't killed it yet. On the contrary, testing supports it. I still can't say I'm convinced, because it will really take a lot to convince me of a genuine reactionless drive (as it should). I expected NASA testing to locate the measurement error; they did not. Next step is to put it in space and task it to accelerate using its claimed thrust. If it does so convincingly (enough thrust that it's measurable, with multiple "burns" that demonstrate change in velocity or vector) there will be few doubts left.

>>7283483
IGNORE THE SHILL THREAD

>>7283483
Gay shit for fuccbois who squat 1pl8

>>7283483

It's probably bullshit, but the fact that it's producing measurable, directional thrust, with the fact that NO ONE can explain why (people who think it works don't have any proven explanation for why it works, and people who think it doesn't work can't give any kind of explanation (that I've seen) for the thrust that instruments keep measuring) makes it very interesting to watch.

I'm really curious as to what's causing the error, frankly. Multiple teams across the world have all measured some amount of thrust, and none of them can explain why. The concept of a reactionless drive seems to violate Newton's third law, so plenty of people are going "Well of COURSE it's bullshit!" and seem to think that scientists' equipment saying there's thrust even though there isn't any thrust is perfectly fine and dandy. I'd like to live in a world where professional lab equipment is accurate, personally.

>>7283483
the (m)EM(e) drive is the future of humanity!

>>7283942
FFS, it's not reactionless. IT'S PROPELLANTLESS

>>7283483
Maybe it's bullshit maybe it isn't.

The fact remains that gravity and E&M behave and act in such a similar manner that a conversion between the two forces is almost certainly possible, just undiscovered.

It's the holy grail of engineering. It exists we just have no idea how to build it.

>>7283483
As always, these things get a free boost from media and pop-science lovers; after the "great invention of the century" gets international attention, people always divide in those who believe in it, and those who don't: the former usually parrot the same "evidences", used by the media to give a sense of credibility, in order to justify their beliefs; the latter are usually skeptical because they got bitter by years of media crying wolf on supposed scientific breakouts.

In this case, I've read a publication that explains why and how the mEMeDrive should work, and it's just plain wrong. I don't think it will have a follow-up, and eventually it will be disproved. Don't get me wrong, I'll be more than happy if it will be proved to work beyond any doubt, but I don't think it will ever happen.

tl;dr pic related

Does anyone on this board even have interest in quantum physics? I thought this thing used the quantum vaccuum or something to generate propulsion. I'm no expert though lol just my 2 cents

>>7284077
>I've read a publication
Which one? Quantised inertia?

I still don't understand how a propellent-less drive is over unity. A jet engine or turboprop uses the air as propellent. A car uses the ground as propellent. How would a drive that uses qv or some other part of the universe as propellent be over unity? Photon drives use photons as propellent and don't lose mass in their operations.

I feel like people are being overly dismissive rather than simply being pessimistically reserved.

>>7284086
From what I read on the forum and technical papers you describe the cavity as two open ended waveguides with a tensor connecting them. Its too bad I know nothing about waveguides and forgot what I knew about them in college physics.

>>7284361
>over unity
no one of the experimenters claimed that
they all called it propellentless or something to that effect

>>7284361
>yfw aether turns out to be real

>>7283942
>>7283536
>>7283962

best answers one could give to this question tbh.

Couldn't agree more.


>>7284361
I'm struggling to understand this as well.

The only thing I can come to is from a thermo perspective (engingeering fag here)

The universe in our obvservable dimensions is the full system; considering it a closed system as a whole will imply the conservation of momentum and energy.

When people claim it's superceeding those conservation laws, I feel like what's really going on (if it's pushing aginst QV or some other 2spooky4me shit), then yes, in our reference of our observable dimensions as a closed system things are going hay wire, but really that next dimension is part of the system that we aren't seeing, and we aren't accounting for it in our system analysis.


a simpler example is the parallel to flat landers

I picture the EM drive working like this:

>flatlanders can only see x and y dimension, but not z.
>flatlander nutcase makes a weird device that pushes against objects in the z plane
>other flatlanders think he's bonkers because they can't see the z direction

i dunno thats just a non-physics dudes perspective on it.

>>7285014

I should also expand and say;

i have a srs "pls b real" boner for this.

I try to keep that separate from my analysis tho

>>7285067

rare pepe

>>7285067
Yeah. So far, "bet against the propellantless drive" has always been a safe bet. I really want it to be true, but I won't believe it until such time as they stick it on a spacecraft and it moves.

This one's stood up to a lot more than most propellantless drives, though, and it's getting hard not to hope.

>>7285079
>it's getting hard

>>7285157

Like your moms dad's dick did after before I'm back.

>>7285168

Dude you're high

>>7285168

Have u ever been as far as decided to do look more like want?

>>7284361

>>7285079
>it's getting hard to not hope

yeah, seriously. and it sucks because so many people still immediately write it off as tinfoil hat tier

>>7285014
>a simpler example is the parallel to flat landers
>I picture the EM drive working like this:
>flatlanders can only see x and y dimension, but not z.
>flatlander nutcase makes a weird device that pushes against objects in the z plane
>other flatlanders think he's bonkers because they can't see the z direction
>i dunno thats just a non-physics dudes perspective on it.

Ya dun just described string theory, you poor, poor man.

>>7286046
>Ya dun just described string theory, you poor, poor man.

no he didn't. please remove yourself from /sci/ you don't know of which you speak.

>>7286046
does that make me retarded

>>7286057
Eh, he kinda did, more or less... Big part of string theory centers around dimensions wrapped up in all sorts of weird little ways - in the most elaborate "well make this work damnit!" mathematical effort I've ever heard of.

As for who see the EM and scream, "it's impossibru!" - I think it's fairly clear there are some fundamental flaws in our fundamental theories, given the mismatches between them and the observations of the universe, and the stretches we've been making lately in an effort to explain them (string theory being a fine example). At the very least, we admit they are incomplete. We've turned our model of the universe on its head four times in the past century alone, so it wouldn't be all that surprising, really.

But if the thing works, it's kinda scary to use something like this, without knowing HOW it works. There's no telling what the consequences are. Could be running on the souls of dispossessed orphans for all we know. Might tug on that one loose thread and undo the whole sweater of the universe.

Fuck it... FOR SCIENCE!

>>7286057
Eh, he kinda did, more or less... Big part of string theory centers around dimensions wrapped up in all sorts of weird little ways - in the most elaborate "we'll make this work damnit!" mathematical effort I've ever heard of.

As for those who see the EM and scream, "it's impossibru!" - I think it's fairly clear there are some fundamental flaws in our fundamental theories, given the mismatches between them and the observations of the universe, and the stretches we've been making lately in an effort to explain said (string theory being a fine example). At the very least, we admit they are incomplete. We've turned our model of the universe on its head four times in the past century alone, so it wouldn't be all that surprising, really.

But if the thing works, it's kinda scary to use something like this, without knowing HOW it works. There's no telling what the consequences are. Could be running on the souls of dispossessed orphans for all we know. Might tug on that one loose thread and undo the whole sweater of the universe.

Fuck it... FOR SCIENCE!

>>7283942
>On the contrary, testing supports it.
On the contrary, testing is inconclusive at best. Lrn2science, please.

If testing actually supported this, it would be all over the evening news.

>>7286920
Eh, no, the existing test is positive, multiple times, only the method of testing is coming into question. (Though no one seems to have a theory as to why this test would return what is does.)

>>7286884
>fundamental flaws
>stretches we've been making
>turned our model .. on its head four times

Wow. Damn close.

Care to expand a bit? I'm asking because I'm currently writing an exposé for a short story. Genre: Fictional history of modern science. Pic has short snip, conversations with a 'ghost'. I'd like to include the 'EmDrive Affair' and I'm collecting all the publicly available papers for further study. "Thrust? Forget it, that's just a small side effect" said the ghost...

Nice gif btw. What specifically does it represent? And thanks in advance.

real talk: there's enough weird evidence here to take a closer look, but its entirely possible that the whole thing is down to bad measurements or bad test rigs

the laser interferometer finding spacetime warping inside the resonant cavity (warping 40x higher than atmospheric heating could create) is the REALLY spooky bit.

eagleworks is ramping up for a larger scale test with a proper force measurement rig in a vacuum chamber, including the interferometer testing. At that point we'll know whether to shug and move on, or get incredibly incredibly excited

>>7288011
>the REALLY spooky bit
Maybe, depends on historical perspective. It's not new, not at all.
Do you happen to know about more formal publications regarding the interferometry thing? I'm also looking for papers discussing the proposed quantum vacuum plasma physics.

Question from the barely educated: does the EM drive's core mechnica of function have anything to do with TT Townsend's work on 'contrabaryonic' devices? specifically that lopsided dielectric antennae affair what supposedly generated small bursts of linear thrust when cycled through the on/off position

>>7288403
Did you mean Thomas Townsend Brown?
Dunno, have to read what he did.

It has all the markings of being an example of bad science. All the experimenters that claim a positive result have different positive results, the null device gave thrust when it was designed specifically to give no thrust and the most recently reported thrust is pretty much negligible and is claimed as a real signal with no error analysis. As for the space-time warping bit, there is no real write up of it I have seen which includes any form of error analysis other than the claim it cannot all be attributed to air.

>>7288435
Yes, my bad, it's been a while since I read the tinfoil hat coverage of his work and got interested enough to go past the wikis and grab some works from the local bookstore

>>7288439
Recheck your facts. The null test was an unslotted Cannae drive which by the inventor's theory wouldn't work as well as the slotted drive.

The Cannae drive is not the emdrive. The null test is not a control.

>>7288184
nah, the laser tests were not done in vacuum, and dont have a paper published, that was the thing they released on the nasa spaceflight forums

if they get some legitimate tests done and it still shows that effect, some real weird shit is going on

>>7288624
>Want to test theory of reactionless drive
>Create devices which should and should not produce thrust according to theory
>Both create equivalent thrust measurements
>Measurements are not significantly different from running experiment without devices attached
>Claim to have proven reactionless drive works and simultaneously disprove theory of reactionless drive.

Yes, physics is about experiments, but their results are uninspiring, their claims are ridiculously out of line with what they measure and they fail to do any meaningful error analysis. So, their results aren't what they claim and can at best be extrapolated to maybe someone with better equipment should look before we toss it in the trash.

>>7288660
>>Create devices which should and should not produce thrust according to theory
NONE of them should generate thrust according to theory and the control did generate zero thrust.

>>7288760
The fact is that the device produces thrust, there is no getting around this.
The important part is how it does this. For all we know it's caused by known mechanics and not magic(translation: we don't know).
The second part to this is if the thrust scales with power input.

>>7288760
There are several "theories" for reactionless drives which, as far as I can see, all work by various approximation errors. The experiments that have been done were set up to specifically test these theories. From these theories, you can produce a device which should not produce thrust, which in the Eagleworks case was the null sample. It produced just as much thrust as the "real" sample. Eagleworks' "control" run was just the amplifier circuit with the resonator replaced with a resistive load and this did not get zero thrust, it got about half what the cavities got. This gives us a noise floor that is really close to the actual signal reported with no accounting for changes in the noise that could arise from adding the resonant cavity given by the experimenters. IT is also radically different from other, similar tests run by other groups which are also dissimilar from each other. Combine the complete lack of realistic error analysis with inconsistent experimental results across different groups and the science-by-press-release attitude, you end up with all the hallmarks of scientific bullshit.

>>7288773
The control did NOT produce thrust.

Journalism at it's finest for ignoring that fact and get it mixed up with the null test.

>>7288776
The resistive load produced ~15microNewtons of thrust due to interactions with the magnetic field from some shielding device. This was treated as noise since this thrust should arise from magnetic force on the input wiring. The cavities produced something like ~30-50 microNewtons each. The "null" sample should not have produced thrust according to the theory the were working with, yet it produced equivalent thrust to the "real" device which the theory stated should produce thrust. Why can't anyone see what is wrong with this picture?

>>7288789
>The "null" sample should not have produced thrust according to the theory the were working with
Yes it should
The null test was testing the hypothesis that some holes would improve the thrust. They didn't.

>>7288789
What theory? At this point they are basically just like "I have no fucking idea what's going on, let's just try random shit."

i think this is the real deal guys, the next paradigm shift.

grab a copper bucket and your mom's microwave, soon the stars will be ours!

>>7289042
i want this to be real for exactly this reason
>you can make an inefficient version out of scraps

>>7288773
>complete lack of realistic error analysis
2012 Juan Yang paper, pic shows excerpt

>>7288439
>different positive results
of course, they used different devices after all
get the papers

>>7287965
If this thread lives to tomorrow I may have a chance to respond to that.

The image is an illustration of string theory's twisted dimensions thing. The strings between the blobs are a coil-like twist of two dimensions connecting various strings (ie. the blobs, for which the mathematical term suddenly escape, but there's a meme roaming around here related to said). String theory is fucked as hell though, as it basically depends on being untestable. You can prove anything mathematically, really, but if it can't be tested, it's just fantasy. That's before we get into membranes.

But the math is good, and it supposedly gives you a GUT, of sorts... It's just, you can't do anything with it, as so much of it occurs at an untestable level.

Nonetheless, the fact that folks have to do crazy stuff like this to explain the unexplained, just goes to show how much the current models are flawed and/or missing pieces of the puzzle.

I want to habeeb but I fear it's actually using the metal as reaction mass and the space warping is just the interferometer fucking up.

>>7289191
>it's actually using the metal as reaction mass
It would be a pretty sweet drive that can strip atoms out of solid metal and use them as reaction mass.

>I have information I can't disclose, yet, and not from Shawyer directly, that has removed any last little bit of doubt I had the thrust is very real. However like any new tech, still in development, there are issues that can cloud performance. As I was told my one replication, keeping a high Q frustum working at optimal Rf frequency is NOT easy. Smallest drift off and thrust stops. Constantly changing temp of various frustum areas also changes cavity frequency enough to detune. Cavity Q of 50,000 to 60,000 sounds great to get good thrust but it turns into a monster intent on NOT producing thrust.

>Based on what I have learned, blasting away with a wide band magnetron into a low Q cavity may be a good option as it really reduces lost/NO thrust from being constantly off resonance with a high Q cavity.

>I'm told the peer reviewed paper Shawyer will present in 2015, with his commercial partners, will be an eye opened. No more doubts. All over. Time to start building or buying as the case may be EM Drives.

I'm about to blow from excitement.

>>7289283
happening?

>>7289283

>no source

>>7289283

>>I have information I can't disclose, yet,

>yet


>>7289306

No. This reeks of an actual scam now, but with microwave ovens instead of "tesla drives" and magnets

>the stars will be ours!

If it works then it pushes against something yet unaccounted for by current theory. Spergs need not feel triggered about broken physics.

>>7289283
>peer reviewed paper Shawyer will present in 2015
In the meantime study www.emdrive.com/2Gupdate.pdf
Entertainment guaranteed..

>>7289353

All doubts I had that this was anything but quackery are now gone; it's junk. It's officially betting time. If you run into an Emdrive believer, bet them any amount of money that a working unit will never materialize. Be very careful with the language of any wager you make, becuase the countless test failures down the road will do nothing to sway the believers from their conviction that it works (they just know it in their gut), and repeated failures will soon spin off into conspiracy theory ("big science is sabotaging the tests somehow!"). But if you can get one to bet you a thousand dollars that there will be no sucessful demonstration of actual thrust (not thrust inferred from a change in measured weight, but thrust used to accelerate while in orbit), it's money in the bank.

>>7289379
>scam
Nigger are you retarded? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

>>7289178
Thank you, I'll be patient.
Good fiction needs 100% fact; at least.

>>7289379
I'm ready, too. I haven't seen such a proliferation of pseudoscience on this board since the fucking neutrino saga.

>>7289620
There is literally 1 thread active on the subject.
Stop bitching

>>7289669
One too many, IMO.

All subtleties aside, what would be the raw thrust of a 2.4GHz 2.5kW magnetron coupled to a horn antenna?

>>7289899
8.33µN (frequency doesn't matter)
EmDrive wins, hands down.

>>7289326
>le bitter skeptic maymay

>>7289283
I was excited for a minute, and then I remembered who shawyer was and that he was basically retarded.

I agree with that other guy, this seems pretty bullshit.

Don't mind me, testing
<span class="math">x^2[/spoiler]

>>7290302
Even with Shawyer out of the equation, it still has merit.
The device is giving off thrust. The question is how.
Is it something stupid like magnetism or heat? Or something new? That's the question that needs answering.
That dude might as well made an accidental discovery that he has no idea on how it works.

>>7290302
>seems pretty bullshit
Let the experiment decide.

>>7291432
Yeah that's pretty much how I feel, what I'm saying is bullshit is

>I'm told the peer reviewed paper Shawyer will present in 2015, with his commercial partners, will be an eye opened. No more doubts. All over. Time to start building or buying as the case may be EM Drives.

>>7284060
How is gravity and em similar. That's like trying to convert strong force into EM

Based Sean Carroll

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/05/26/warp-drives-and-scientific-reasoning/

>>7291542
His whole argument is null when you consider that experiments have shown that it generates thrust.

>I’m not going to go through the various claims and attempt to sort out why they’re wrong. I’m not even an engineer! My point is a higher-level one: there is no reason whatsoever why these claims should be given the slightest bit of credence, even by complete non-experts. The fact that so many media outlets (with some happy exceptions) have credulously reported on it is extraordinarily depressing.

lmao

>>7291549
>experiments have shown that it generates thrust.
Refer to the picture in >>7284077

So if the error in measurements won't be found, then when should we expect the falcon 9 to lift the memedrive to space station?

>>7291644
Why would you put a dog in space? That just seems cruel.

>>7291685

I'm all for crazy inventors.

But i'm reluctant to call a youtube video of a slav and his radioshack scales evidence based science

>>7291730
You'd rather trust the opinion of a sci poster over documented evidence?

>>7291730
What that slav is doing is actual science. I do question his methods though, he needs to properly set his shit up to avoid external effects.

>>7291685
It's man's best friend
You want your best friends to become astronauts don't you

>>7291764

The first cosmonaut in orbit was a dog on board of Sputnik 2, launched into outer space on November 3, 1957.

Before the launch, one of the scientists took Laika home to play with his children. In a book chronicling the story of Soviet space medicine, Dr. Vladimir Yazdovsky wrote, "I wanted to do something nice for her: She had so little time left to live.

Over five months later, after 2,570 orbits, Sputnik 2 — including Laika's remains — disintegrated during re-entry on April 14, 1958.

>>7283483
They belong on >>>/x/ with all of the other conspiracy/psuedoscientific shit.

>>7292786
Feeling better now, son? Hopefully some day you will learn that your ignorance isn't really strength; it's just ignorance. Maybe you even learn to read?

>>7292786
seconded.

>>7292945
>>7293002
>Someone like me puts forward a new idea to /sci/
>Couple of neckbeards shit on it and thread goes dead
>Someone else puts forward an idea that just happens to be snapped up by the pop-sci media circus
>Suddenly /sci/ gives it serious attention
Yeah I'm really surprised to see such statements on here because /sci/ is generally dismissive and narrow minded as fuck but when pop-sci is involved suddenly everyone is interested. I guarantee if some random anon had first posted the em drive idea it would have been totally ignored.

>>7291730
>a slav and his radioshack scales
I knew the public's opinion of NASA was low, but I had no idea it was this low.

>>7291730
ikr? this is a farce.

>>7291644
i don't think it's actually in space, but, i'm not spaceologist

Fuck anyone calling this thing a memedrive. This thing will allow humanity to explore the stars and universe just like Carl Sagan said we would.

This combined with Dr. Rossi's E-Cat will make interstellar travel a reality.

>>7291764
>>7291696
They aren't clingy monkeys like humans though. They would be completely helpless.

I would be like taking you up to the ISS and then locking you in a clear hamster ball and just being like "Well you're in space now, have fun. We'll take you back in a few months."

>>7293186
>Dr. Rossi's E-Cat

Glad im not the only one to see the parallels.

>>7289329

>>7291549

These people who are smugly skeptical about anything controversial just to create a sense of superiority are the most gigantic faggots.

>>7293654
>Stop using logic
>I want to believe stupid shit

So I was reading the wikipedia article about EMdrive. And it says that superconducting resonant cavities could produce 3 tons of thrust per kW... Wut.
Even if this is complete bullshit, it's an interesting thought. Imagine how much this would revolutionize everything. I feel like this is even bigger than AI.

Imagine putting that on a flying car/ufo. You could literally travel anywhere on earth and in space using pretty much no energy. I mean I have an electric bike that uses more energy. And that is just a bicycle.

What do you think about this.

>>7293694
>So I was reading the wikipedia article about EMdrive. And it says that superconducting resonant cavities could produce 3 tons of thrust per kW...
haha, nice joke.
starting with "superconducting", a hard-to-get material...

> Imagine how much this would revolutionize everything. I feel like this is even bigger than AI.
and why not upgrade the nukes?
with faster and better thrust?
or just maybe using kinetic force to blow up without countermeasures?

>>7291549

>when you consider that experiments have shown that it generates thrust.

This hasn't been completely proven yet.

>>7293679

>logic

If we used "logic" the emdrive would still be a noname thing because it hasn't been proven to work yet. Instead people let their emotions (namely their desire for space travel) overcome their logic. The device isn't proven to work and there's no theoretical backing. That may change, but right now there's no evidence that this isn't a false positive (either due to measurement error or otherwise).

>>7293694

>I feel like this is even bigger than AI.

And notice how 90% of AI articles these days are sensationalist garbage and philosophical wankery.

>>7293796
AI is a modern bandwagon of wishful thinking.

>superconducting resonant cavities

they exist

>>>7293795
>This hasn't been completely proven yet.
Yeah but experiments have shown that it generates thrust.

>>7293860

Or it could have been measurement error, given how few tests have been done and there is still no theoretical backing. Wheather or not it has produced thrust hasn't been completely proven yet.

>>7293796
> And notice how 90% of pop-sci AI articles these days are sensationalist garbage and philosophical wankery.
ftfy

read real papers next time

>>7293877
>Wheather or not it has produced thrust hasn't been completely proven yet.

exactly

>>7293885

Yes.

That was my point.

>>7293860
no, experiments are inconclusive at best. jesus christ, can you kids even science these days? NOW GET OFF MUH LAWN!!!

>>7293923
>>7293936
How does
>experiments have shown that it generates thrust
equal
>it has been definitively proven that it generates thrust
?

>>7293811
I'd get into your superconducting resonant cavity if you know what I mean

does the em drive emit electromagnetic waves? i saw the image with the cone and it seemed to me like EM drive is basically using a flashlight as a thrust source. or is it supposedly breaking momentum by not emitting anything

>>7293654

It's called assburgers.

>>7294040
>does the em drive emit electromagnetic waves?
no, at least not much, the waves just bounce back and forth inside the closed cavity resonator.
>flashlight as a thrust source
that would yield a maximum of 3.3 nN per watt but the best-documented emdrive got about 0.72 N at 25 kW or 28.8 µN per watt or about 8640 times the pure photon thrust.
where does all the energy go? it heats up the cavity (depending on Q factor) and the reflected power gets channeled through a circulator and ends up in the absorber (the thing to the right of the circulator).
>momentum by not emitting anything
patience; until now it's just a static force, the thing is not accelerating yet
*sigh*, no one reads them papers..

>>7294245
noice data man.

I can't wait to see how "hard" science fiction changes if this pans out.

You know. Plus the whole awesome new future of practical torch ships.

>>7294771
I'm eagerly waiting for any official statement; I'd have to change a crapload of things in a sci-fi story I'm currently writing if this turns out to be true.

>>7293046
He isn't talking about NASA.

>>7294958
Thank you for using your powers of Assburgers to clarify that for us.

>>7294245
>..ends up in the absorber
It should be mentioned that the reflected power could possibly be fed into a second cavity or a chain of cavities. The current version is an experiment designed to evaluate the principle. The first application will be orbit adjustment and drag compensation of Tiangong-2 (^.^)

>>7293877

There have been multiple tests with different teams and different setups. The odds of multiple instrumentation errors is very low at this point.

So when do we find out if this thing is bullshit or not?

There have been multiple tests now with different teams, what's the next step? Why hasn't there been a yes or no answer yet?

Sorry I'm a dumbass, I don't even understand how this thing works or why it's so revolutionary.

>>7296201
It would be revolutionary because the thing doesn't shoot out particles to get thrust forward. Or pushes on the air or water or anything like normal vehicles do to gain momentum.

>>7296201
Hint: It's bullshit.

>>7296201
They're setting up a custom vacuum chamber deal to test it with in a different fashion. All the tests have come up green, so far, but the results are so unusual (and unexplainable) that there's question as to the testing methodology, thus NASA is setting up this different method.

>>7296730
>NASA is setting up this different method
Additionally, they are planning to let other institutions repeat the experiment.

>>7296363
not bullshit. we dont know why it works but it does.

>>7289178
?

>>7297245
Seconded. I would really like to know which fundamental flaws string theory is addressing.

>>7297591
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gorE4nCViPU

What doesn't String Theory cover?

GUT, primarily, but also the dark energy and matter crisis, other issues of gravity and the formation of the universe... Multi-verse, membranes of universes nudging up against each other, all kinds of shit.

Problem is, it all depends on a bunch of shit going on that, by it's very nature, we'd never be able to detect (for similar reasons related to the problem of the Heisenberg principle). The math works out, and there's some mysteries you can refer to as evidence for it, but really, it's just a mathematical latticework that happens to fit the observations, but it could just as well be any number of such latticeworks could be built, and they'd all be wrong... Additionally, it all rises out of a desperate effort to prove the fundamental core formula, that spin into ever greater complexity, and requires more and more untestable phenomenon.

Which is why most cosmologist make fun of the idea.

But it might be right - we, at least, certainly know all our current models are incomplete, while string theory is much less so as a whole.

>>7297245
Yeah, that'd be the one.

>>7297846
Please replace the shitty popsci movie with an actual source of information on string theory.

>>7294245
>force, the thing is not accelerating
>force
>not accelerating

>>7297872
String Theory is pop-sci incarnate.

If you want the actual math, you'll have to do pic related.

Maybe start yonder:
http://www.galaktiskeparti.no/PDF%20files/String%20Theory%20and%20M-Theory%20A%20Modern%20Introduction~tqw~_darksiderg.pdf

>>7293186
>Rossi
This.

>>7297915
Congrats, you just learned that N ≠ N/kg
What if the force is a function of velocity as Shawyer predicts?