[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 229 KB, 1016x442, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9698615 No.9698615 [Reply] [Original]

It seems legit Sci
Where were you when NASA confirmed a mass-less drive

>> No.9698640

>>9698615
it's not been confirmed, they imply got funded for a NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts phase II study.

They plan to have independent experts test it:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

The thing to understand is that NIAC studies concepts that seem like a good idea, to at the very least show they are bad ideas so no one makes the same mistake again and at the very most completely change everything.

>> No.9698645

>>9698640
I just figured if it was a completely bunk idea they would have knocked them out at phase I. They must have seen something to give them the phase II funding.

>> No.9699156

>>9698615
Why is no one talking about this

>> No.9699162

Fake as everything nasa discovers

Mass is a must exist property based on today's society standards

Maybe if the world was.comunist mass would be free but right now nah not.possible

But nice try buddy

>> No.9699166

Reminder wasting money on crackpot research is money wasted on crackpot research instead of real research.

Shit like this should be illegal especially with the current state of underfunded Science.

>> No.9699171

>>9698615
Yeah this technology is too easy to test and would lead directly to gravity interference and anti gravity. I am sure it is legit.

>> No.9700109

>>9698615
It's more legit than the emdrive. THAT'S total BS.
Woodward has a theory based on legitimate physics. It's worth spending a trivial amount of money investigating it.

>> No.9700123

>>9700109
Give me a quick rundown on this theory

>> No.9700153

>>9698615
Total dumbass here.

What does this mean?

>> No.9700235

>>9700153
propulsion in space generally requires matter (which has mass), and we'd never reach appreciable speeds using a space propulsion system based on it. Thus, we turn to massless drives and other techniques which produce thrust without requiring something to "push" against.

However, the article is misleading. We're building theories to help us understand interspace travel but nothing has actually come of it yet. The hope is that we find a system which works and actually gets a ship moving through space at a reasonable pace.

>> No.9700271

i can't think of a way to do it so there's no way.

>> No.9700286

>>9700123
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Woodward_effect

If you move at steady speed, there's no way to tell you're moving except by looking at external objects. There's no such thing as "absolute motion". Einstein. You can say you're motionless and everything else is moving.

But you can tell you're inside a can spinning at constant speed. Centrifugal force (which is actually inertia) presses you against the walls.
The question is "spinning relative to what?" Why can't you say you're not spinning and the rest of the cosmos is?

Ernst Mach proposed that inertia was an inductive effect caused by the combined gravitational fields of distant stars. If there was no other matter in the universe, you'd feel nothing as your ship spun. Einstein alternated over the years, sometimes agreeing with Mach and sometimes disagreeing.
Obviously, there's no easy way to check what happens in an "empty universe".

Woodward's notion is that inertia can be made to vary slightly. An object would resist more at certain times. If you push "left" at times of high inertia and "right" at times of low inertia, there'd be a net force.

>> No.9700306

>>9700286
If you believe in momentum conservation (and if you don't then you don't believe in ANYTHING in modern physics) then Woodward's device (eventually) accelerates the distant stars infinitesimally. You're still pushing against something, but you don't have to carry that something along and keep throwing it overboard.

As >>9700235 notes, this is just checking out a theory which might lead to something. No guarantees. The idea is attractive because even efficient fusion rockets (like in "The Expanse") are marginal when it comes to interstellar flight.
Chemical rockets will probably never take men farther than Mars and Jupiter and Saturn would require years in flight even with nuclear (fission) thermal rockets.

>> No.9700346

>>9698615
what does it mean to have a mass-less drive? To have no exhaust?
Wouldn't this violate the laws of conservation of angular momentum, or is there an external force being exploited for such acceleration?

>> No.9700361

>>9700346
That's exactly what it means.
See >>9700286 and >>9700306

What it's reacting against might be subtle. A long charged cable with a current running through it can raise or lower its orbit by reacting against the Earth's magnetic field. That only works when you're near Earth, of course.
This is usually NOT what people mean when they talk of mass-less drives. Neither are solar or laser-driven sails.

>> No.9700389

>>9700286
>f you push "left" at times of high inertia and "right" at times of low inertia, there'd be a net force.
so it's like leaning back and forth on a giant galactic swing-set.

>>9698615
Modeling research based on a book that contains the word "absurd" in the title. This will go well!

>> No.9700458

>>9699166
How do you decide whata crackpot science and whats potentially ground-breaking paradigm-shifting research?

>> No.9700480

>>9699162
You must be over 18 years old to post here.

>> No.9700508
File: 169 KB, 684x1116, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal 2015-05-11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9700508

>>9700458
You learn as much science as you can.
And you consider the source of the "news".
If it's in Scientific American or Quanta, it's at least plausible.
If it's in the National Enquirer or on Fox News, forget about it.
University press releases tend to fall somewhere in the middle; something solid at the core, but sensationalized into click-bait.

>> No.9700514
File: 548 KB, 1038x698, tyson 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9700514

>>9700458

>> No.9700516

>>9698615
Does a light sail count as a mass-less drive?
They aren't new.

>> No.9700519

>>9698615
>we wanna do this thing
>its totally legit guys
>this is what it is
>its totally legit guys, here's a book with a stupid name
>we claim to have done some shit
>we idea-guy'd our way to Proxima B
Yeah, it's totally legit.
Let me just invest my billions of dollars.
Sent ;)

>> No.9700522

>>9700514
>>9700508
facebook memes, really?

>> No.9700523

>>9700389
Actually a good book.
Admittedly, probably not the best title.
Like "The God Particle", very little to do with the contents, but grabs your attention.

>> No.9700528

>>9700516
See >>9700361
It a non-rocket space drive, but not what people associate with "mass-less"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive
Usually taken as "seemingly violates known physical laws".

>> No.9700538

>>9700522
Tyson's right. Learning is the best defense against falling for a scam or other pseudoscientific bullshit.

Anyone pushing "perpetual motion" or "over-unity devices" or "permanent magnet motors" is looking a sucke---, er, I mean an investor who wants to get in on the ground floor.
Sometimes the swindle is new, but usually the miracle machine was invented by Tesla and suppressed by the Government or Big Oil.

>> No.9700874

>>9700538
The difference here is that a reputable organization is giving money to people who says they can make one.

>> No.9700942
File: 11 KB, 637x529, RelativisticFluxDrive.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9700942

>>9700528
So it's a cosmic inch-worm.
Could you use an incompressible fluid and the bernoulli principle where the fluid reaches a significant fraction of the speed of light at the narrow point?

>> No.9702018

>>9700874
Oh, I'm not calling Woodward & company frauds. Far from it!
They have a credible idea and it's worth investigating.

It was a general answer to >>9700458.
How do you decide what's a crackpot idea?
I repeat: learn as much science as you can (what Tyson said) and consider the source.

>>9700942
"Cosmic inch worm" Good way to put it.

But the relativistic flux drive won't work. The flow "forward" must equal the flow "backward" or one end of the device is going to run out of fluid.
Momentum is conserved. It might not seem like that, but there's something you haven't considered.
We can simplify this down to a single particle going forwards and backwards in a tube, between points A and B. The particle has a rest-mass of M. It's shot from A (particle accelerator) at very high velocity, so high that its mass increases to 2M. It's caught at B and slowed to a halt (particle decelerator). Then it's sent back to A at a low speed so it's mass is just M. Now we can repeat the cycle. Right?
But the extra mass, M, was supplied to the accelerator at A from a power source. A battery. The battery at A now weighs less. Less by M.
Conversely, the battery at B has gained energy equivalent to mass M.
We can't repeat the cycle unless we return the energy back to A. We could swap batteries or just connect them electrically. Either way, a mass M moves from B to A in the form of energy.
That leaves the mass-center of the device right back where it started.

No closed-cycle gizmo can move itself. The Mach thruster, IF it works, works because it isn't a closed system. It's reacting against something external.

The Flux drive is ingenious though. Did you think of it?

>> No.9702444

>>9698615
>Where were you when NASA confirmed a mass-less drive

Not sure. Either in the future, or, more likely, in some parallel universe with different physical laws.

>> No.9702446

MAGA

>> No.9702482

>>9702446
If it works, I'm sure he'll claim full credit.
And if it doesn't, he knew NASA was losers all along.