/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7429511]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576515002726

How did this bullshit get past peer review?

[Anonymous No.7429518]

>>7429511
Can you give a good reason why it shouldn't have, besides "the Emdrive doesn't real?"

I mean, yes, the Emdrive almost certainly doesn't real. But enough legit people are taking it seriously enough to try and check if does or doesn't real, which means that it's currently part of legitimate scientific discourse.

This paper is on, IF the Emdrive worked, what you could do with it. Within the paper itself, given the premise, the reasoning and mathematics check out.

[Anonymous No.7429521]

>>7429518 Because it's not even an emdrive experiment, it's a bunch of Shawyer's daydreaming bullshit with hand drawn pew-pew spaceships, NO ACTUAL DATA at all. Seriously, what is this crap?

[Anonymous No.7429523]

>>7429511
>Elsevier
>Shit tier journal

Let's face it, this wouldn't be the first time an Elsevier journal has been a bit lax during peer review.

[Anonymous No.7429526]

I don't even...

[Anonymous No.7429531]

>>7429521
It's a paper on, if the Emdrive worked, what you could do with it based on Shawyer's (probably false) theory of its operation. Calculations are included.

Exploring the potential applications of a controversial or speculative technology is appropriate, as long as you do it with math.

[Anonymous No.7429538]

If microwaves permeating a metal chamber create thrust, how come my microwave oven hasn't flown away yet?

Checkmate, memedrive.

[Anonymous No.7429540]

> Elsevier journal

Damn Elsweyr journals.
Never trust a khajiit.

[Anonymous No.7429541]

>>7429538
Because it doesn't have the correct geometry for the the microwaves to interact with the quantum plasma foam, obviously.

[Anonymous No.7429542]

>>7429538
Because your microwave isn't bigger on one end and smaller on the other.

[Anonymous No.7429544]

>>7429526

[Anonymous No.7429548]

>>7429531
bump
>>7429538
bumpety
>>7429511
now you op
>>7429541
bump bump

[Anonymous No.7429552]

>>7429531
>as long as you do it with math.

[Anonymous No.7429562]

>>7429538

Don't know about the microwave itself but I swear I've seen stuff spin inside.

[Anonymous No.7429566]

Someone link the pdf I ain't paying 40 shekels for memes.

[Anonymous No.7429571]

Id just like to remind everyone that, if this is real, it would be considered "disruptive technology" leading to people being out of work.

You might ask yourself, how would people lose work from this advancement, wouldnt it have a net gain?

Ultimately it would have a net gain, but initially it would be very disruptive hence the terminology. Say you are a physicist or a group of physicists that invests money into a company that deals with technology A, then when techonolgy B comes along it starts creating a new market and value network which in turn decreases the value network of technlogy A. When you change the value network you also change it's nodes (The nodes in a value network represent people (or roles). The nodes are connected by interactions that represent tangible and intangible deliverables. These deliverables take the form of knowledge or other intangibles and/or financial value.)

So people who are vehemently against these experiments are:
A)Dumb, relying on others to provide them with their opinions
B)Dogmatic
C)Nefarious, have a lot time and money invested into the value network of their paradigm

I would also like to to add:

That makes 8 different Emdrive builds in 4 countries and 5 labs.
Plus 6 peer reviewed papers.

[Anonymous No.7429572]

>>7429566 the link has full text

[Anonymous No.7429574]

> Plus 6 peer reviewed papers.

5 of them are chinese
1 is Shawyer's illustrated science fiction

[Anonymous No.7429575]

>>7429566
Something for 0 shekels:
http://audioslides.elsevier.com/ViewerSmall.aspx?doi=10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.07.002&Source=0&resumeTime=0&resumeSlideIndex=0&width=800&height=639

[Anonymous No.7429579]

>>7429521
The humanities approach to science is being applied to STEM.

[Anonymous No.7429582]

>>7429511
Because circle-jerking in science is still circle jerking?

[Anonymous No.7429592]

>>7429571
>Id just like to remind everyone that, if this is real, it would be considered "disruptive technology" leading to people being out of work.

Except nobody wants to put memedrives on satellites because they take more power than the entire ISS, and deep space probes are such a small industry that they affect approximately 0 jobs.

[Anonymous No.7429594]

>>7429575
>Published test data of eight EMDrive thrusters from five independent sources, in four countries confirms EMDrive theory.

>These (or similar) spacecraft will fly

Can't help but feel Shawyer is being a little overly optimistic.

[Anonymous No.7429595]

We 2/3 c now, faggots. Stop being salty.

[Anonymous No.7429599]

>>7429595

[Anonymous No.7429603]

>>7429592
Why couldn't a satellite or probe be powered by a miniature nuclear reactor?

Wouldn't a reactor output a lot more energy than just photo-voltaic cells?

[Anonymous No.7429608]

>>7429603
>Why couldn't a satellite or probe be powered by a miniature nuclear reactor?

it can

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

>Specifically, a useful EM Drive for space travel would need a nuclear power plant of 1.0 MWe (Megawatts-electric) to 100 MWe.While that sounds significant, the U.S. Navy currently builds 220 MW-thermal reactors for its “Boomer” Ohio class ICBM vehicles. Thus, the technology to build such reactors is available, and the technology needed to build such a device for space-based operations has been around since the 1980s.

[Anonymous No.7429610]

The only reason this is in Elsevier is that this has a large potential of being cited a fuckton, so of course they would let it through.

[Anonymous No.7429613]

>>7429603
Because nuclear reactors are not allowed in space
and the only acceptable "reactor" allowed in space is a RTG, and they are in very very short supply.

[Anonymous No.7429615]

>>7429603
>why couldn't a satellite or probe be powered by a miniature nuclear reactor
nuh uh, dey do dat aready butt

[Anonymous No.7429616]

>>7429603
it's because we don't need that kind of power. once a probe is on it's trajectory or a satellite is in orbit, it requires next to no energy to make it stay there.

[Anonymous No.7429619]

>>7429613
>not allowed
Whose gonna stop me at 200.000 km/s?

[Anonymous No.7429623]

>>7429616
I was obviously referring to using the nuclear reactor specifically to power a memedrive.

[Anonymous No.7429624]

Now he needs to publish a paper on 3rd gen emdrives.

[Anonymous No.7429627]

>>7429592
Actually, an extremely low-thrust electric drive on a satellite would be extremely useful for stationkeeping and end-of-life deorbiting.

Very small thrusters are already included on satellites for precisely this reason, but they run out of fuel eventually. Even something as low-thrust as an EmDrive would be valuable.

Of course, I wish to stress that the EmDrive's apparent thrust signal is most likely an artifact.

[Anonymous No.7429628]

>>7429511
>The reasoning and mathematics check out
>predicted terminal velocity at 0.67c
>at 0.00002c the craft will have more kinetic energy than the energy input, breaking conservation of energy

[Anonymous No.7429633]

>>7429628
meant to reply to >>7429518

[Anonymous No.7429634]

>>7429616
In terms of the Station, propellant-less propulsion could amount to significant savings by drastically reducing fuel resupply missions to the Station and eliminate the need for visiting-vehicle re-boost maneuvers.

Im sure if we really thought about it, others advantages would spring up too.

[Anonymous No.7429636]

>>7429628
>at 0.00002c the craft will have more kinetic energy than the energy input, breaking conservation of energy
What, no it wouldn't. That's not how energy works dipshit.

[Anonymous No.7429641]

>>7429636 EmDrive does violate CofE and therefore IS a free energy generator. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.7429642]

>>7429572
Not for me it doesn't. You're probably signed in on a university account; those generally get access automatically.

[Anonymous No.7429644]

>>7429616
For a typical geostationary communications satellite with a 6kW (kilowatt) solar power capacity, replacing the conventional apogee engine, attitude thrusters, and propellant volume with an EM Drive would result in a reduction of the launch mass from 3 tons to 1.3 tons.

[Anonymous No.7429654]

>>7429616
rekt
>>7429634
>>7429644

[Anonymous No.7429660]

>>7429636
>a hurr durr durr
How do we calculate KE for an object with constant acceleration?

KE = 0.5m v^2 ∝ t^2

How do we calculate energy input?

Ein = P t ∝ t

Notice a problem here?

[Anonymous No.7429666]

>>7429636
Would you like me to explain?

Well, let's think about it this way. The EmDrive converts an energy input into a thrust, which for a constant mass is equivalent to a constant acceleration.

This means that, for a static conversion rate and static mass, a constant power input will cause velocity to rise at a constant rate.

Now, kinetic energy goes as the *square* of velocity. <span class="math"> E_k = \frac{1}{2} m v^2 [/spoiler].

So if velocity increases at a constant rate, then kinetic energy will increase at an accelerating rate.

So eventually the rate of increase in kinetic energy will inevitably exceed the rate of energy input, and Conservation of Energy will be violated in that reference frame.

Shawyer compensates for this by supposing that as velocity increases, EmDrive efficiency decreases, to keep conservation of energy from being violated. So energy input would have to increase with the square of velocity in order to maintain a constant thrust, so that it keeps pace with kinetic energy.

Still, this runs into a problem of its own - velocity relative to *what*? The EmDrive can only conserve energy in one reference frame at a time, because in another reference frame which is moving towards it, relative velocity will be greater and so kinetic energy gain will outpace energy input again.

So although the EmDrive can avoid violating conservation of energy, this comes at the expense of the equally cherished Principle of Relativity.

[Anonymous No.7429672]

So you can power an emdrive-propelled spaceship with a pair of emdrives spinning perpetually on a long truss. Why? Because fuck you physics that's why.

[Anonymous No.7429673]

>>7429623
You wouldn't want a nuclear reactor (and associated radiators) on every little comsat, because it doesn't need that power for its primary mission. It would only use the memedrie for orbitkeeping, and the increase in total mass and complexity means we'd be better off just doing what we're doing (small chemical rockets).

[Anonymous No.7429676]

>>7429660
Shawyer doesn't claim that the EmDrive has constant acceleration for a constant power. He claims that a moving EmDrive has lower thrust, with efficiency decreasing with speed, so that the energy input keeps pace with the kinetic energy.

However, this does run into problems with the Principle of Relativity, so it's not like he's avoided violating any cherished basic physical axioms, he's just not violating that one in particular.

[Anonymous No.7429681]

> Shawyer doesn't claim that the EmDrive has constant acceleration for a constant power.

Because he's a fucking crank. Memdrive cannot know it's acceleration history. Violating equivalence is much worse than violating CofE.

[Anonymous No.7429683]

>>7429660
From the paper itself:

"Although the world wide experimental work described has clearly validated the static thrust mechanism of an asymmetric resonant microwave cavity, no experimental verification of the conservation of energy for an accelerating EmDrive thruster has yet been published. The simple theoretical view is that acceleration of the cavity causes a reduction in stored energy, a consequent reduction in the loaded Q value, and thus a reduction in thrust.

A detailed mechanism was described and modelled in [8]. In summary as an EM wave cycle progresses through its multiple reflections in the resonant cavity, the acceleration causes Doppler shifts at each end plate. Because the guide velocity is different at each end, the Doppler shifts are different, even for a constant rate of acceleration. This build-up of net frequency shift causes a widening of the spectrum of the standing wave pattern, and causes much of the power spectrum to fall outside the narrow bandwidth of the resonant cavity. Clearly this effect will increase with increasing cavity Q, as the number of reflections increase, together with the reduction in bandwidth. The effect on specific force approximates to a square law when Q is the variable. Therefore with the increase in Q of up to 5 orders of magnitude from a first generation to a second generation engine, the effects of acceleration will change dramatically."

In other words, an EmDrive with constant power will not have constant acceleration. The amount of energy input needed to achieve constant acceleration *also* increases with the square of velocity.

So Ke and Ein would both be proportional to t^2 for the case of constant acceleration.

[Anonymous No.7429687]

>>7429683 Fuck the paper. Everything Shawyer writes is total nonsence. It is a common knowledge that he stole memedrive blueprints from aliens and then made up a "theory" to justify his "invention".

[Anonymous No.7429688]

>>7429676
>However, this does run into problems with the Principle of Relativity, so it's not like he's avoided violating any cherished basic physical axioms, he's just not violating that one in particular.

I think you missed the next sentence. I'm well aware that the EmDrive working that way would imply the existence of a preferred reference frame, which would also break physics as we know it.

I'm just trying to point out that he's at least aware of the conservation-of-energy argument. Give the crank some credit.

[Anonymous No.7429696]

>>7429676
That's bullshit, Doppler shift would not be noticeable at the speed required to break conservation of energy. This has already been debunked by physicists.

[Anonymous No.7429718]

>Not Science

>Produces lengthy Scientific arguments

Look guys, until people stop arguing about EM Drive, it's Science....

This thread is Science even.

[Anonymous No.7429730]

>>7429660
>KE = 0.5m v^2 ∝ t^2
Except KE ∝ t^-2

Idiot.

[Anonymous No.7429741]

>>7429603
I do remember going to the National Atomic Testing Museum and seeing a claim there that the ability to use nuclear energy to create a rocket thruster was possible and proven , but its just no government wanted to run the risk of sending nuclear material into the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.7429749]

>>7429666
>So if velocity increases at a constant rate, then kinetic energy will increase at an accelerating rate.
>So eventually the rate of increase in kinetic energy will inevitably exceed the rate of energy input, and Conservation of Energy will be violated in that reference frame.
So, he's wrong in saying the acceleration is constant then? Fair enough, but the force can still be constant. We can say that as we approach relativistic speed the mass increases and so by (too simple, but illustrative) F = ma we can say that acceleration decreases as mass increases. But this doesn't violate anything, you just go faster a little slower.

[Anonymous No.7429787]

>>7429741
> no government wanted to run the risk of sending nuclear material into the atmosphere.

We use RTGs all the time. SNAP 10-A is a legitimate nuclear reactor and is currently in Earth orbit.

[Anonymous No.7429789]

>>7429666
You're in an accelerating frame. Energy is not conserved across reference frames. Nothing is being violated you're just dumb.

[Carbon No.7429794]

>>7429511
Its STEAM not STEM, respect this artwork and its attempt to advance humanity!

[Anonymous No.7429798]

Elsevier crank status: confirmed.

[Anonymous No.7429805]

>>7429798
Hopefully this debacle ruins enough careers that space exploration can be productive again.

[Anonymous No.7429817]

>>7429730
Are you retarded? Do you not understand how acceleration works?

[Anonymous No.7429825]

EMdrive is a joke. Anyone studying it should feel embarrassed.

[Anonymous No.7429830]

I'm not qualified enough to look at the actual data and calculations to debunk it

I do hope it works (it probably doesn't)
but why can't someone just test it and see if it really works with 100% accuracy?

[Anonymous No.7429847]

>>7429825
m80 ur lyfe is a joke aright.

[Anonymous No.7429851]

>>7429741
You're thinking of NTR, Nuclear Thermal Rockets. Whole different kettle of fish than nuclear reactors in orbit, because the exhaust gases would directly flow through the reactor and might carry nuclear material with them into the exhaust.

[Anonymous No.7429855]

>>7429817
>doesn't get that:
>velocity squared
>meters per second squared
>per second squared
I hope you're trolling
Else I have bad news for you son

[Anonymous No.7429862]

>>7429830
People keep trying. The thrust signals observed are so small that it is extremely difficult to eliminate sources of error that might swamp them and you need a very sensitive balance to measure them in the first place. So even though there have been measured thrusts in vacuum with extremely rigorous attempts to avoid error, we *still* can't be sure it's not just an interaction with the testing apparatus or powerlines somehow, because the signal's so small that you wouldn't need much of an error.

And because the signals are so small, you *have* to test it in vacuum to be sure, because things like air currents resulting from the cavity getting hot can throw off your data.

So you need an experimental research team with

1. An extremely precise high-sensitivity thrust gauge
2. A high-quality vacuum chamber
3. Willingness to take claims of a reactionless drive seriously enough to test

And these, together, form a very small group.

In order to get high thrust with lower power, such that the signal was easier to measure, then according to Sawyer you'd need a very efficient cavity, which is quite difficult to design and build.

[Anonymous No.7429864]

>>7429862
And incidentally, if we did manage to rule out all sources of error, and establish beyond doubt that it was producing real thrust when powered up, I still wouldn't bet on it being a reactionless drive.

Instead, I'd bet that Shawyer had accidentally invented a novel form of particle accelerator or ion drive, and that the thrust came from the drive ablating itself, or from some other very definitely reactionful source.

[Anonymous No.7429865]

>>7429855
>meters per second squared
Oh my god, you really are this stupid. That is the unit of velocity, it tells us nothing about how v^2 is changing, which is how KE changes. Positive acceleration means v is increasing linearly with time, which means v^2 is increasing quadratically with time.

Are you seriously going to argue that the distance traveled of a car going at constant velocity increases with 1/t? That would mean that the care is losing distance as it drives. Fuck you're dumb.

[Anonymous No.7429875]

>>7429865
How would that break conservation of energy? It only implies you would go less fast per increase in unit energy. Nothing you said follows from this.

[Anonymous No.7429879]

>>7429865
Hey buddy, you were arguing that KE is proportional to t^2, which is false. Might wanna reread your clusterfuck there.

[Anonymous No.7429880]

>>7429862
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1109504.html

[Anonymous No.7429883]

>>7429862

>Willingness to take claims of a reactionless drive seriously enough to test

Well, even if it's not gonna work for it's intended purposes it might be a new phenomena to study or something else that might be useful, it wouldn't be the first invention to end up like that.

I just don't like the fact that people happily raise 100k $ for hooverboard on kickstarter but stuff like this goes into the trash / gets no attention.

Anyway, great post, thanks

[Anonymous No.7429887]

>>7429875
>It only implies you would go less fast per increase in unit energy.
Nothing implies that. The meme drive is purported to have thrust to power ratio of 0.3N/kw. That means constant acceleration with constant power. For a photon drive relativistic effects prevent this before free energy is reached because the thing has such low thrust per unit of power it needs to get lots of velocity for its KE to match it's input energy. The meme drive has several magnitudes of order more thrust per power unit and reaches that point at such a low velocity relativistic effects are negligible.

>Nothing you said follows from this.
Nothing I said follows from the assertion you just made up?

>>7429879
It is proportional to t^2 faggot. Can't you read? The kinetic energy of an accelerating object increases with v^2, which increases with t^2 BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING ACCELERATING. Welcome to high school physics, fucko.

[Anonymous No.7429888]

>>7429880

[Anonymous No.7429895]

>>7429880
that's actually pretty neat
how old is that?

[Anonymous No.7429896]

>>7429887
Kinetic energy is not proportional to t^2. Its derivative to time isn't either, that is proportional to t^-4. Get your brain checked. The other anon was referring to your claims not following from your assertions, which is true since you fail to grasp high school physics.

[Anonymous No.7429901]

>>7429862
I'll never understand why tajmar did his experiments with his shittily designed prototype. They always said you need a high Q factor. Then tajmar comes along and builds a prototype with a Q factor below 50 and chases error sources for the rest of the paper. Because their measuring gear is sensitive enough. Fucking hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.

[Anonymous No.7429902]

>>7429608
why can't a flashlight be used for thrust? does it not work like that?

[Anonymous No.7429905]

>>7429902 It works, just not good enough.

[Anonymous No.7429907]

>>7429896
>Kinetic energy is not proportional to t^2. Its derivative to time isn't either, that is proportional to t^-4
Which of these statements do you disagree with?

1. KE of an accelerating object is 0.5mv^2

2. The velocity of an accelerating object increases linearly

Because if you accept both of these then it follows that KE is proportional to t^2. If you don't accept these, then you are fucking retarded and should be held back a year to the 5th grade.

[Anonymous No.7429908]

>>7429883
>people happily raise 100k $ for hooverboard on kickstarter but stuff like this goes into the trash / gets no attention.
yeah, they're about equally useless, I guess.

[Anonymous No.7429915]

>>7429908

Why? We don't know for certain that it is useless.

>but muh laws of physics

and please, stop pretending that we know all of physics

[Anonymous No.7429919]

>>7429540
More needs to be done to demonstrate the Khajits as jews
>>7429511
What the fuck is wrong with you? A paper takes premises, assumes them true, and extrapolates, this is literally science in action. If the premises are true, the extrapolations become one more way to prove them true and also tell us what this can be used for, and if the premises are false, the extrapolations become one more way to prove them false

Further proof /sci/ doesn't understand science.

[Anonymous No.7429927]

>>7429907
>2. The velocity of an accelerating object increases linearly

I disagree with this one. If you can't figure out why, you might be retarded yourself.

[Anonymous No.7429931]

>>7429927
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

Constant acceleration -> constant rate of change in velocity -> v is proportional to t -> v^2 is proportional to t^2

You are disagreeing with the definition of acceleration.

[Anonymous No.7429936]

> Cannae has moved into a new headquarters and laboratory. We are installing our vacuum chamber and superconducting test laboratory which will be operational in August 2015. We will be testing next-generation prototypes of the Cannae Drive technology in September 2015. Stay tuned!

[Anonymous No.7429938]

>>7429931
I'm not disagreeing that constant acceleration would cause the velocity to increase linearly.

I simply disagree with your bizarre assertion that non-constant accelerations are impossible. Imagine, for instance, that I am driving in my car and slam hard on the accelerator pedal, then gradually over the next five minutes let up on the accelerator until my foot is off it entirely.

For the duration of those five minutes, I will be an accelerating object, and yet my velocity will not have increased linearly.

[Anonymous No.7429941]

>>7429936
there's just way too many stupid people with way too much money.

[Anonymous No.7429942]

>>7429915
Clearly the gaps in human knowledge of physics can only be filled by giving millions of dollars to crackpots. One of their anti-gravity or perpetual motion machines might actually work!

[Anonymous No.7429945]

>>7429938
>I'm not disagreeing that constant acceleration would cause the velocity to increase linearly.
You just said you disagreed with this.

>I simply disagree with your bizarre assertion that non-constant accelerations are impossible.
You are a delusional loon if you think I asserted this.

>Imagine, for instance, that I am driving in my car and slam hard on the accelerator pedal, then gradually over the next five minutes let up on the accelerator until my foot is off it entirely.
Go back to this post and read the first sentence: >>7429660

[Anonymous No.7429946]

>>7429942
I would absolutely approve of a $5 million "crackpot fund," to be used for the independent testing of various crackpot ideas that pass a certain minimal level of scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.7429955]

>>7429880
>80Hz tone overlaid onto the entire video

Is this how I can trick stupid people into feeling enthusiastic about my company?

[Anonymous No.7429956]

It cannae drive cap'n!

[Anonymous No.7429960]

>>7429945
>You just said you disagreed with this.

>>2. The velocity of an accelerating object increases linearly

>I disagree with this one. If you can't figure out why, you might be retarded yourself.

Golly, anon, it looks like I'm just talking about accelerating objects! "Accelerating objects" is not the same thing as "Accelerating objects with constant acceleration."

Consider the following exchange:

>Simplicio: The position of a moving object increases linearly.
>Salviati: No it doesn't. (What about accelerating objects?)
>Simplicio: Yes it does! constant velocity -> constant change of rate in position -> d is proportional to t. You are disagreeing with the definition of velocity.
>Salviati: Yes, agreed, that's what "constant velocity" means. Not all moving objects have constant velocity.
>Simplicio: YES YOU DID FUCK YOU HURRR

Which one of these people is retarded?

>You are a delusional loon if you think I asserted this.
Let's look at your statements, shall we?

>Accelerating objects increase in velocity linearly with time
>Constant acceleration causes objects to increase in velocity linear with time

These statements, taken together, clearly imply that "accelerating objects" and "objects accelerating with constant acceleration" are equivalent. This is equivalent to asserting that "all accelerations are constant."

>>7429660
Yes, good job! I think we're getting somewhere.
Now: *why do you think constant acceleration is applicable to the EmDrive when it clearly leads to violation of CoE*? You're assuming what you set out to prove!

[Anonymous No.7429974]

>>7429942

So now we are calling aerospace engineers with years of research behind them under NASA funding crackpots? If you think with 100% certainty that it doesn't work and you have sufficent knowledge to debunk it, why don't you do so? And why do you even bother reading the thread if you are so sure that it's bullshit, instead you waste your time coming to these threads to shitpost and call people crackpots just to feel significant.

I'm happy that people do and publish work like this, this is the purpose of science even if he ends up being wrong.

[Anonymous No.7429975]

>>7429960
>Golly, anon, it looks like I'm just talking about accelerating objects! "Accelerating objects" is not the same thing as "Accelerating objects with constant acceleration."
If you are talking about non-constant accelerating objects then every single post you made is irrelevant to my argument, which is about constant accelerating objects.

Me: KE of constant accelerating object is proportional to t^2
Retardo: No it isn't!
Me: Yes it is, here's why...
Retardo: That only applies to constant accelerating objects!

Now shut the fuck up retard. You have just wasted my time because you failed to fucking read.

[Anonymous No.7429987]

>>7429974
I agree. Now that we've reached a point of diminishing marginal returns on scientific advancement, the main point of science is to funnel money to people who can make us feel good about 'imminent' breakthroughs.

[Anonymous No.7429995]

>>7429975
>Me: KE of constant accelerating object is proportional to t^2
How can anyone be literally this stupid, wow. Just wow. Get yourself checked, troglodyte.

[Anonymous No.7429998]

>>7429975
My claims are not irrelevant to your argument.

My claims are that *your argument is irrelevant.*

[Anonymous No.7429999]

>>7429995
Again, read the fucking post >>7429660
>How do we calculate KE for an object with constant acceleration?
>KE for an object with constant acceleration
>constant acceleration

Reading is haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard

[Anonymous No.7430000]

>>7429987

It's been made clear to me, that they are detecting something that can easily be an error, or something else. It's not about how I feel about it, but really, is it not worth investigating and we should throw out all the data, ideas into the trash and just never know for sure? Is that something that would please you?

[Anonymous No.7430004]

>>7429998
No, your claimed that my argument was wrong: >>7429879
Now because you failed to read you are moving the goalposts to claiming my argument is irrelevant. However this is also an idiotic argument because there is nothing stopping the meme drive from constantly accelerating with constant energy input.

[Anonymous No.7430008]

>>7429931
>v is proportional to t
No, v is proportional to 1/t, you mongoloid. You are talking about distance changing with t^2 when constant acceleration, not energy. FYI the high school formula for distance traveled is:

d = d_0 + vt + 1/2 at^2

You are literally dumber than the average high school graduate, congratulations on proving to this entire board how much of a failure you are. Kill yourself.

>>7429999
Nice quads, too bad you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.7430013]

>>7430004
Yes, you fucking idiot, your argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong because your *assumptions are wrong*.

KE in an accelerating system does, indeed, increase with t^2 *if acceleration is constant.* But it isn't, so it doesn't.

> this is also an idiotic argument because there is nothing stopping the meme drive from constantly accelerating with constant energy input.

Is not your *entire argument* that if it were to do so, it would break conservation of energy?

So, uh, no shit there's something that would stop it from accelerating constantly. That something is the Law of Conservation of Energy.

[Anonymous No.7430018]

>>7430013
Maybe what stops it from doing so is it not working? It sure wouldn't break any laws that way.

[Anonymous No.7430021]

>>7430008
>No, v is proportional to 1/t, you mongoloid.
That would mean that as you press the gas pedal down on your car, your velocity decreases.

>You are talking about distance changing with t^2 when constant acceleration, not energy.
No, I'm not you illiterate piece of excrement. That has literally nothing to do with what I said.

1. constant acceleration is equivalent to a linear increase in velocity with time, meaning v ∝ t (FOR A CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING OBJECT, SHITHEAD)

2. Thus means v^2 ∝ t^2 (FOR A CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING OBJECT, SHITHEAD)

3. KE is proportional to v^2

4. Thus KE ∝ t^2 (FOR A CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING OBJECT, SHITHEAD)

[Anonymous No.7430032]

>>7430013
>Your argument is wrong because your *assumptions are wrong*.
I know you're still in elementary school and haven't learned about proofs yet, but look up what a "proof by contradiction" is.

>KE in an accelerating system does, indeed, increase with t^2 *if acceleration is constant.* But it isn't, so it doesn't.
How is it not? Again, what is stopping the meme drive from simply constantly accelerating until it breaks conservation of energy? It has a constant energy input, it has a constant thrust to power ratio, and the speed necessary has negligible relativistic effects. There is nothing to keep it from breaking conservation, thus it's a lie.

[Anonymous No.7430040]

>>7430008
> v is proportional to 1/t
this is a 18+ site. GTFO you pleb

[Anonymous No.7430053]

>>7430008
>No, v is proportional to 1/t, you mongoloid.

Hahaha, funniest thing I've read today.

[Anonymous No.7430119]

>>7430032
You do realize that "constantly accelerating" isn't the same thing as "constant acceleration"? If you have constant force your acceleration won't be constant.

[Anonymous No.7430132]

>>7430119
>You do realize that "constantly accelerating" isn't the same thing as "constant acceleration"?
They are literally the same thing in physics.

>If you have constant force your acceleration won't be constant.
F = ma

[Anonymous No.7430145]

>>7429613
you dont need a nuclear reactor. If the memedrive really does generate thrust from basically nothing, you can just put 2 drives on the spacecraft instead of one. One moves the vehicle, the other turns a turbine powering the vehicle. Boom, magic spaceship.

[Anonymous No.7430147]

>>7430132
Except we are talking about relativistic velocity here.

[Anonymous No.7430157]

>>7430145
whats powering the memedrive thats turning the turbine?

[Anonymous No.7430158]

>>7430147
>Except we are talking about relativistic velocity here.
Except we're not. With a thrust to power ratio of 0.3 N/kw the thing would only need to reach 5 km/s to get free energy. That's 0.00002c

[Anonymous No.7430166]

>>7430157
>the memedrive thats turning the turbine?
itself. If you can violate the law of conservation of momentum, you can violate the law of conservation of energy.

[Anonymous No.7430181]

>>7430147
So Lorentz factor of 1.0000000001 is relativistic? Please.

[Anonymous No.7430182]

>>7430145
>meme drive is a free energy machine

This is my favourite meme.

[Anonymous No.7430194]

>>7430166
and if it doesnt break conservation of momentum

[Anonymous No.7430202]

>>7430166
It doesn't violate the conservation of momentum.

[Anonymous No.7430207]

>>7430182
Any reactionless drive with a thrust to power ratio over 3.33 µN/kw is a free energy machine.

[Anonymous No.7430209]

>>7430194
>>7430202
It does. See >>7429660

[Anonymous No.7430231]

>>7430209
see>>7427156

[Anonymous No.7430250]

>>7430231
Do you even understand what that post says? It's a bunch of nonsense. Modified Inertia has a startling number of flaws and has seen it's explanative power shrunk since we figured out the Pioneer anomaly. It's fringe physics.

[Anonymous No.7430256]

>>7429511
>jumping to conclusions
nice meme.

[Anonymous No.7430258]

>mfw the memedrive works and Newton and /sci/ get BTFO

[Anonymous No.7430263]

>>7430256
kek

[Anonymous No.7430275]

Anywhere I can get retard proof detailed instructions of how to build one?

[Anonymous No.7430286]

>>7430275
there are no instructions, everyone's just pulling shit out of their ass. Just get a bucket or some shit and solder a plate on top. Clamp a microwave magnetron to it and presto.

[Anonymous No.7430288]

>>7430275
On a scale of 1 to 10, how retard proof?

[Anonymous No.7430292]

>>7430288

C

[Anonymous No.7430297]

>>7430288
Nothing is truly retard proof, trust me.

[Anonymous No.7430299]

>>7429526
That... makes no sense.

I mean, even in Kerbal I can't get something like that to do anything.

[Anonymous No.7430317]

is this just a hot air balloon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ

[Anonymous No.7430363]

>>7430317
A hot air balloon that get heavier when pointed down?

[Anonymous No.7430378]

>>7429608
>the U.S. Navy currently builds 220 MW-thermal reactors for its “Boomer” Ohio class ICBM vehicles. Thus, the technology to build such reactors is available

>lets just put one in space! Simple.
>it blows up because cooling a reactor of that magnitude isnt possible in a vacuum

[Anonymous No.7430386]

can someone explain how solar sails can work but not the em drive? i thought photons have a momentum

also im stupid so please go easy on me

[Anonymous No.7430388]

>>7429936
>cannae
>litterally the scottish slang for cant
This is going places

[Anonymous No.7430393]

>>7430386
The EM drive doesn't (shouldn't) emit photons.

[Anonymous No.7430396]

>>7430386
radiation pressure from the sun

[Anonymous No.7430400]

>>7430393
arent electromagnetic waves the same as photons?

[Anonymous No.7430402]

>>7429936
Didn't NASA show that those fins inside the cavity didn't have any effect on the thrust whatsoever, disproving Cannae LLC's entire theory on how it worked?

[Anonymous No.7430409]

>>7430388
>cant drive
its like poetry

[Anonymous No.7430415]

>>7430400
Yes.
It ideally should not be emitting any photons outside the resonance chamber.

[Anonymous No.7430506]

>>7430402
If it's just a cavity then Cannae's innovation isn't needed, and all the money goes to memedrive.

Since both rely on madeup pseudoparticles, nobody knows how they work.