/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6677525]

EMDrive works.
Confirmed by NASA.
Where is your god now?

[Anonymous No.6677531]

I'll wait for more evidence.

[Anonymous No.6677534]

We've had this technology since at least the 40's, when it was reverse-engineered from Nazi runes (who themselves likely reverse-engineered it from ETs), but it's just been supressed. A shame, really. What Christianity did for Science is what government agencies are doing to technology.

[Anonymous No.6677539]

>>6677534
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6677540]

>>6677525
You /pol/ shitposters are still at it?

Just admit it, you were wrong and got rekt, at this point you're embarrassing yourself.
NASA hasn't confirmed shit and there are no papers released, just your NASA circle jerking. Why is /pol/ so pro-NASA anyways?

You fags even tried to raid the board with shitposts after you got rekt on the last emdrive thread.

Just let it go and go back to your home board.

[Anonymous No.6677818]

>>6677525
So Shawyer conceives of the idea, engineers a test that works, and no response. China gives it a look, engineers several tests that work, and no response.

Finally an American, Fetta has a similar proof of concept, and NASA --finally-- listens? Do I have this right?

[Anonymous No.6677832]

>>6677818
not even the same device being tested
msm are getting it all mixed up

[Anonymous No.6677843]

>>6677540
Gravity isnt confirmed either

[Anonymous No.6677846]

>>6677832
Not even the same between whom, there are three parties here.

[Anonymous No.6677853]

>>6677846
The device being tested is the Chinese one, one that has been developed from the Chinese theory) the "original" EMdrive I don't think is taken very seriously, it provided the impetus for the Chinese but the two devices are different.

[Anonymous No.6677856]

>>6677525
It's a quantum vacuum plasma thruster, not an EMdrive. They are completely different designs.

[Anonymous No.6677872]

>>6677525
The null test article produced thrust too, I'm calling bullshit on their explanation and blaming their shoddy test apparatus.

[Anonymous No.6677883]

>>6677525
It's as if you're implying NASA is still a credible institution and not a bad joke it its former self.

[Anonymous No.6677885]

>>6677872
The actual paper was incredibly shoddy, after having their null test produce thrust when it shouldn't have they spend the last part of the paper discussing fanciful ideas of space travel without ever discussing sources of error.

[Anonymous No.6677888]

The real question, which I haven't seen addressed in any hype article out there, is Thrust to Weight Ratio, and how it scales up.
The pictures suggest a kilogram-ish device for 50µN of thrust. that's 1/1962000000 TWR, without actual payload. It means 62.2 YEARS to accelerate by 9.81m/s.
Good luck doing anything with it.

[Anonymous No.6677892]

>>6677883
Can you really blame them though? They're doing important work but constantly get their budget slashed, they need to overhype these results in a desperate attempt to stop congress (or whoever) from slashing there funding even more, the institution is still credible, they just have to resort to "Barnum" methods of grabbing peoples attention.

[Anonymous No.6677898]

>>6677892
Yeah it's bad, they have to fight and claw to even approach half a percent of the federal budget.

[Anonymous No.6677909]

>>6677525

>Where is your god now?

He's busy NOT EXISTING.

[Anonymous No.6678612]

>>6677525

That's pretty cool.

>>6677534

>*tips tinfoil*

>>6677909

>*perfectly valid opinion*

[Anonymous No.6678614]

>>6677856
Sounds neat. What does it do?

[Anonymous No.6678763]

>>6677534
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6678779]

>>6677525
/x/IDF pls go

[Anonymous No.6678792]

i am a professional scientician and let me tell you that nothing can violate the laws of physics. How do i know? I went to fucking college dipshit. They even say that nothing can violate the laws of physics. so why do you conspiracy retards even try?

[Anonymous No.6678852]

Came to make a thread about this.

Sciencefags BTFO

[Anonymous No.6678865]

>>6677909


I do not loathe atheists, as most atheists claims to loathe believers. I am not angered by their failure to see what appears obvious to me. I understand that they see differently. I do think that they have reasons for their belief, as I have reasons for mine, which are the real foundations of this argument.

It is my belief that passions as strong as theirs are more likely to be countered by the unexpected force of poetry, which can ambush the human heart at any time.

It is also my view that the atheist is his own chief opponent. As long as they can convince themselves, nobody else will persuade them. Their arguments are to some extent internally coherent and are a sort of explanation - if not the best explanation - of the world and the universe.

They often assumes that moral truths are self-evident, attributing purpose to the universe and swerving dangerously round the problem of conscience - which surely cannot be conscience if he is right since the idea of conscience depends on it being implanted by God. If there is no God then your moral qualms might just as easily be the result of indigestion.

Yet they are astonishingly unable to grasp that these assumptions are problems for his argument. This inability closes his mind to a great part of the debate, and so makes his atheist faith insuperable for as long as he himself chooses to accept it.

[Anonymous No.6678867]

>>6678792
Laws defined by man. who most certainly cant misinterpret the universe

[Anonymous No.6678870]

How hard are you sweating under your fedora?

[Anonymous No.6678904]

>EMDrive

More like a really poor Q-thruster.

[Anonymous No.6678906]

>>6677525
>Where is your god now?

Busy readying eternal torment for the nonbelievers

[Anonymous No.6678910]

>>6677898
If they are so good why not go for the free market? It would solve all problems instead of relying on outdated state funding.

[Anonymous No.6678911]

>>6677898
>0.5% of the richest government's budget
>insignificant

kek

[Anonymous No.6678916]

It's like those superluminal neutrinos all over again.

Also
>earth shattering stuff from nasa

[Anonymous No.6678918]

>>6678916
NASA was the third to confirm something that someone else made, they didn't do shit

[Anonymous No.6678921]

Who the fuck cares? You can either build a machine that hovers without visible exhaust or build some aparatus that sits around while you claim to make some miniscule measurements.

If there would be something to it, there'd be already be more serious research done.

[Anonymous No.6678926]

Can somebody tell me what actually happened? All media reports I've read seem really shoddy. SO, there are several different concepts for reactionless drives that are claimed to work by some garage engineers but nothing is really confirmed. Then NASA builds a different machine that is not supposed to work in order to prove that it doesn't work and now they meassure some eeny teeny thrust that could as well be a result of the shoddy design they were going for in the first place?

pic related

[Anonymous No.6678928]

>>6678926

[Anonymous No.6678931]

>>6677525
I'll get the most important question out the way first:
How on earth will the emEngine actually take off without propulsion? Won't it have to be carried into space first via a propulsion engine then left to work as described? That thing is not taking off by itself unless it can bend the rules of gravity

[Anonymous No.6678932]

>>6678921
NASA laughed this guy out the door. The Chinese did all the research.

[Anonymous No.6678933]

>>6678931
It would be propelled by conventional means until it escapes earth's gravity then move about with the new engine, powered by the sun.

The articles I'm reading seem to suggest if shit is real, the size of satellites could be halved

[Anonymous No.6678934]

>>6678931
As it is now, it can't take off by itself.
It's about having satellites that can't run out of fuel as long as they have a power source.

[Anonymous No.6678941]

Wait, it produces only 0.1% of the thrust of the Chinese machine? Brace for communist hover tanks.

[Anonymous No.6678943]

Is it just a conical drum that you feed microwaves into? Would changing the proportions change its effect?

[Anonymous No.6678945]

>>6678941
Same concept, different design.

I'd still brace for our Chinese overlords however.

[Anonymous No.6678966]

I suspect the "reactionless" drive is actually losing mass. If it is hot enough, some volatile substance in the drive (like adsorbed air or solvents in any plastic parts or insulation) will evaporate and act as reaction mass to produce thrust. Heck, at a high enough temperature, even metal parts will sublime at a significant rate in vacuum. Everything has a vapor pressure, after all. They need to carefully weigh the drive before and after the experiment (in vacuum each time after degassing) to eliminate this possibility.

[Anonymous No.6678970]

They built something that shouldn't work but worked nonetheless. They were clearly not knowing what they were doing. Who says they built it correctly?

[Anonymous No.6678973]

>>6677525

There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the most insightful guy around?!

Oh my God.I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a like girl as you once again type your little EMDrive thread up and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don't even fill in the captcha. Maybe you're such a disgusting NEET that you actually paid for a 4chan pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. The "epic"EMD.jpg, isn't it? I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your Doritos on the floor, but it's ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that's right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she's probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on 4chan posting about a rocket engine. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a NEET. A pathetic popsci NEET. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can't even try to talk with you because all you say is " EMD EMD EMD." You've become a parody of your own self. And that's all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he's done a million times now. And that's all you'll ever be.

[Anonymous No.6679032]

EM drive is total bullshit. Not maybe, not in need of more test, just bullshit. 'Quantum vacuum plasma'? Seriously?

Conservation of momentum is not an informal statement "made by men". It follows DIRECTLY and UNAVOIDABLY from space translation invariance. You simply don't escape it.

This comes before. Then the experiments are shady as fuck and the methodology is just criminal.

It's cold fusion. Or omeopathy. /x/-tier.

> funded by NASA
they get a ridiculous budget. And NASA pays to attract the sympathy of crackpots. They know very well it will never work.

[Anonymous No.6679036]

>>6679032
oh and let me add a thing. Protip:

if someone designs a device that works through "new physics" and AT THE SAME TIME introduces said new physics, he's lying with probability 1.

[Anonymous No.6679049]

>>6679032
>>6679036
From: Some faggot on 4chin who probably doesn't even have a PhD let alone a PhD in anything useful

[Anonymous No.6679058]

>>6678911
>I have no concept of scale, like literally none.

[Anonymous No.6679064]

>>6679049
you need much less than a PhD to see through a reactionless drive scam.

[Anonymous No.6679074]

>>6677888
>62 years

So stack a 100x100 grid of them instead and get that acceleration rate in two days...

[Anonymous No.6679080]

>>6679074
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

[Anonymous No.6679100]

Yeh when I have to bet NASA vs. conservation of momentum, my money is on the latter. I'll wait more results.

[Anonymous No.6679101]

>>6678934
The implications are bigger than satellite RCS thrusters. This type of thruster might be the only feasible way of achieving relativistic speeds because of the outrageous mass ratios required to do that with any kind of reaction thruster. An unmanned vehicle powered by ground-based lasers and propelled by a quantum vacuum plasma thruster wouldn't need to carry propellant or a powerplant and could be stupidly light. Maybe light enough to go places within a human lifespan.

[Anonymous No.6679104]

>>6679101
too bad it's magic.

[Anonymous No.6679109]

>>6679104
/sci/ - mindless cynicism

[Anonymous No.6679136]

>>6679109
>/sci/- Well informed cynicism

fix'd

[Anonymous No.6679140]

>>6679109
Current physics already provide a very solid framework for how the universe works. There is still some uncharted territory but we can be pretty sure there are no "dragons" hiding there. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Even if you only completed 50% of it you can already make out what it's going to be. You still don't know how it'll look in detail but there probably won't be a racecar in the gaps of the tiger's face.

[Anonymous No.6679158]

>>6679140
The quantum vacuum plasma thruster does not require new physics. We're talking about NASA's device, not the EmDrive.

[Anonymous No.6679169]

>>6679058
Can't tell if retarded or extremely retarded.

[Anonymous No.6679171]

>>6679136
>/sci/
>well informed anything

How new?

[Anonymous No.6679177]

wot m8 if the microwaves are just causing interference in the measuring devices, and they interpret it as thrust? Or the microwaves power cable is acting as a magnet?

[Anonymous No.6679181]

>>6679177
This. Instead of guessing why the results are what they are, you cockfaggots just go "omfg it cant work becuz mah science says so"

[Anonymous No.6679185]

>>6677525
>>6677843
>>6678792
>>6678852
>>6678911
>>6679169
>>6677843
>>6677534

>>>/pol/
>>>/x/
>>>/g/
>>>/t/
>>>/f/
>>>/out/

[Anonymous No.6679190]

>>6679185

[Anonymous No.6679193]

>>6679190
0/10 troll harder

[Anonymous No.6679194]

>Cannae drive
>EmDrive
>Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster

Which one is the machine in question? Of all the articles I've read I've read there's at least one for each of those drives.

[Anonymous No.6679196]

What's with the autistic faggots crying pol?

[Anonymous No.6679197]

>>6679193

[Anonymous No.6679200]

>someone doesn't agree with me
>I call them plebs, faggots, autists and retards and tell them to go to /x/
>HURR I R SOOOO SMART

[Anonymous No.6679201]

>>6679158
Quantum stuff doesn't translate to macroscopic effects. In every case where this was claimed either the effects were too small to not rule out non-quantum disturbances or there was the possibility of at least one competing hypothesis which was as proven/unproven as the claimed quantum effect.

[Anonymous No.6679203]

Remember when people said nothing was faster than light or instant transmission of data was impossible?

[Anonymous No.6679205]

>>6679203
Remember when people claimed that neutrinos travel faster then light?
I don't see your hypothesis that explains the macro scale universe just as well as GR.

[Anonymous No.6679230]

>>6677525
What is this now?

[Anonymous No.6679232]

Quantum drive relying on the casmir effect aside, and EmDrive with wrong calculations aside, I was under the impression that photons did carry momentum despite being massless.

[Anonymous No.6679233]

These threads are always so depressing.

[Anonymous No.6679242]

>>6679232
They do, the momentum is
<span class="math"> \displaystyle p=\frac{h}{\lambda}
[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6679270]

>>6679232
>photons .. carry momentum

but no photon leaves the apparatus

"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. Future test plans include independent verification and validation at other test facilities."

[Anonymous No.6679285]

>>6679171
This board is easily the smartest board on 4chan. Just because we're autistic enough to be trolled by 0.999... threads doesn't mean we're stupid.

All claims have to be tested with this kind of scrutiny otherwise people could just make shit up and get away with it.

[Anonymous No.6679345]

>>6678865
> If there is no God then your moral qualms might just as easily be the result of indigestion.
Or evolution, given that certain codes of conduct are beneficial. Other less important and arbitrary moral qualms are likely socially-imposed. You're looking for a contradiction where there isn't any.

[Anonymous No.6679395]

>>6679101
I have more hope in the warp drive project working and allowing faster than light travel than those thrusters getting a ship to noticeable relativistic speeds fast enough to make the trip worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.6679413]

>>6679395
>warp drive
It sounds like a wonderful idea. The problem is that when you work out the energy-distribution that's associated with such space-time curvature, you find that it has to behave completely unlike any sort of energy-distribution with which you're familiar. It turns out that this can be alleviated if our universe is part of a larger dimensional space and if the warp effect can be achieved by moving off of our spacetime into the bulk, but there's absolutely no evidence to support either of those things.

The simple truth is that at this time there is no reason what-so-ever to suspect that either of those could actually be constructed. And, as a side note, if they can be constructed, then either one is equivalent to having a time machine; if time travel is impossible then so are they.

The current formulation of that engine requires "exotic matter" specifically matter with a negative mass. While nothing in general relativity prohibits this from existing, making it is "probably" impossible. The current experiment at the NASA Eagle lab is to determine if a similar effect (but not capable on its own of producing warp travel) can be created and measured. If it is so, it would be an indication that we might be on the correct track. However it will probably fail, but you never know until you try.

[Anonymous No.6679431]

Why are scientists so dumb? We have all the thrust we would need if we just built a nozzle around the sun and put a spaceship on the front.

[Anonymous No.6679439]

>>6679413
I think a couple of months ago I remember them releasing a artistic representation of how the ship might look. I couldn't find an accompanying paper that said if they worked out any of the problems, or if that is still assuming the technology is possible. I'm guessing it's the latter. Working on these hype projects is probably more to increase press about them in hopes they get more money. If any of it works then that's an extra bonus.

[Anonymous No.6679445]

>>6679431
>Shkadov thruster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine#Class_A_.28Shkadov_thruster.29

Didn't expect that, right?

[Anonymous No.6679456]

>>6678865
>If there is no God then your moral qualms might just as easily be the result of indigestion.


You're actually right. Our morals are a mixture of genetics and societal conventions. There is no OBJECTIVE truth since it all depends on the values you try to achieve.

This doesn't make me feel bad. I just feel sorry, that you can't accept that not everything in the universe has a clear cut answer and some things simply are more complex than "He said so therefore it is"

[Anonymous No.6679459]

>>6679439
This seems to be typical of the stuff coming out of Eagleworks.

To me, this mostly looks like yet another example of shoddy science in support of far-fetched claims, that gets taken much more seriously than it should, just because the claims are printed on NASA letterhead. (Other recent examples include the quickly-debunked debacles over bacteria on meteorites and arsenic DNA)

[Anonymous No.6679465]

>>6679445
Fucking Russians always stealing my ideas...

[Anonymous No.6679473]

>>6679459
Wow, I missed the debunk on the arsenic DNA claim. Last semester I had a geology teacher for a gen ed class still claim that...

[Anonymous No.6679485]

>>6679185
>I don't like what you say, that means you're shitposting
no

[Anonymous No.6679487]

>>6677534
>>6677540
>>6677843
>>6678792
>>6678852
>>6678870
>>6677898
>>6678911
>>6678941
>>6678928
>>6679109
>>6679190
>>6679196
>>6679197
>>6679200
>>6679465
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6679498]

>>6679201
What about superconductors.
Macroscopic quantum phenomena is a thing.

[Anonymous No.6679557]

>>6679498
There's a whole list of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena

[Anonymous No.6679615]

>>6679140
The EMDrive is crap, but from the electroweak to the Planck scale is a fuckton of uncharted territory.

[Anonymous No.6679671]

I just had a quick look over the EMDrive author's theory paper. I took immediate issue with the first equation he mentions. He talks about the Lorentz force (which is for charged particles) and applies it to the group velocity of photons (uncharged) in a waveguide, which is completely unrelated. And he bases his entire paper on this? How is there even controversy about this? It's completely retarded

[Anonymous No.6679697]

>>6679671

>According to Shawyer, what Dr. Costella criticized as being "a fraud" in Shawyer's founding theoretical paper was some vectors pointing the wrong direction in a diagram of Shawyer's theoretical paper (...)
>Shawyer has since published an updated theory paper (version 9.4) where the diagram criticized by Costella is simply omitted.

lel

[Anonymous No.6679712]

>>6679285
>This board is easily the smartest board on 4chan.

Well, that's depressing.

[Anonymous No.6679714]

>>6679270
Wouldn't that be easy to build? It's just a can with a magnetron. Can someone with experience solder that shit together and report back?

>Specific thrust of almost one tonne per kilowatt is theoretically predicted with an acceleration limit of 0.5 m/s2 for this kind of thruster.[28] With this goal in mind, Shawyer claims that commercial terrestrial aircrafts incorporating 2G EmDrive as lift engines could be ready by 2020

Just strap it on your backpack and wooo... reactionless jetpack.

[Anonymous No.6679716]

>>6679671
it works doesnt it?

[Anonymous No.6679719]

>>6679487
They're called "jokes," anon. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's serious.

[Anonymous No.6679724]

>>6679671
Is that the one where he cites a freshman physics text book? Because I have a suspicion that if it works, the guy has zero idea of how it does.

[Anonymous No.6679725]

>>6679716
>it works doesnt it?
Maybe, if it does work it is probably for a reason other than what they are stating. They just haven't figured it out yet.

[Anonymous No.6679728]

zero-point energy

[Anonymous No.6679735]

>>6679724
Yeah, that's the one. He cites the Lorentz force from a freshman physics textbook in completely the wrong context. I don't know how you can begin a straight-faced theoretical paper with that.

>>6679716
Extrordinary claims, extraordinary proof. And there isn't any convincing proof yet, or peer review for that matter I don't think.

[Anonymous No.6679738]

>>6679735
Why don't the experiments by Nasa or the Chinese count as peer review?

[Anonymous No.6679740]

>>6677525

The reason we don't see aliens is because none of them have figured out FTL or close to FTL travel. This drive is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6679743]

>>6678966
that's one of the most basic and important parts of a test of something like this and you're suggesting NASA just ignored it?

[Anonymous No.6679752]

>>6679738
>chinese
Not in a peer-reviewed journal. And we all know that China has a bit of a reputation for cowboy science.

>NASA
Their deliberately dud machine also generated thrust. Thus there is clearly effects from the equipment that haven't been ruled out.

[Anonymous No.6679754]

>>6679752
>cowboy science.

Stop making it sound cool.

[Anonymous No.6679832]

>>6679735
Because peer-review necessarily requires being published in a peer-reviewed journal, where top minds can dissect the methodology, theory, equipment and results to make sure the conclusions hold up. It's a fundamental tenet of the scientific method, and until a ground-breaking claim such as the apparent contravention of the conservation of motion undergoes extremely stringent peer-review, it's essentially worthless sensationalist pseudoscience. Anybody can type up a word document with half-arsed diagrams and some equations copied from a textbook, it takes a hell of a lot more to pass peer review.

[Anonymous No.6679835]

>>6679832
Whoops, meant to reply to >>6679738

[Anonymous No.6679849]

>>6678911
The war in Iraq cost enough to fund NASA for about a hundred years.

[Anonymous No.6679881]

Total matter conversion. Direct from mass to gamma rays, molecules at a time. Why wouldn't this work?

[Anonymous No.6679918]

>>6679849
you cant put a price on freedom

[Anonymous No.6679920]

>>6679881
How are you converting those molecules to energy? Do you ask them nicely?

[Anonymous No.6679931]

>>6679881
Gamma rays would be a waste of time, the energy-momentum ratio of all light is the same so you'd be best off just using the most efficient light source that can be directed.

[Anonymous No.6680194]

Some good discussion on Talk Polywell. They haven't really dismissed it, and are waiting to see more results.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2949&start=105

[Anonymous No.6680293]

>>6679931
I believe they were talking about a more dense spectrum

[Anonymous No.6680299]

>>6680293
What do you mean by that?

[Anonymous No.6680306]

>>6680299
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density

[Anonymous No.6680327]

>>6680306
What does that have to do with propulsion?

[Anonymous No.6680774]

>So like electricity probably like, does something to the matter and antimatter which is probably in the vacuum and like, probably propels the device somehow.

Sciencefags plz