em drive proven NASA has proven the EM drive to provide thrust with only electricity

[TheReal1980]

This is why they is called LAWS, they are ment to be broken.

[Clanscorpia]

I wonder what other laws of physics we can break.....(stares at perpetual motion machine)

[Real_PhillBert]

25 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

I wonder what other laws of physics we can break.....(stares at perpetual motion machine)

Done and done.

 

[goodtofufriday]

14 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Done and done.

 

[Devin92]

This is extremely inefficient tho. 1.2mN/Kw. you need infinite power to push a rocket that can take us out of earth atmosphere. It is however a interesting finding. I dont see newtons law broken this easy, there must be a better explanation, i am exited to see the theory behind this experiment to be discovered.

[Real_PhillBert]

4 minutes ago, Devin92 said:

This is extremely inefficient tho. 1.2mN/Kw. you need infinite power to push a rocket that can take us out of earth atmosphere. It is however a interesting finding. I dont see newtons law broken this easy, there must be a better explanation, i am exited to see the theory behind this experiment to be discovered.

I would bet money that the plan would be conventional rockets until they reach orbit, then the EM stage. 

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, Devin92 said:

This is extremely inefficient tho. 1.2mN/Kw. you need infinite power to push a rocket that can take us out of earth atmosphere. It is however a interesting finding. I dont see newtons law broken this easy, there must be a better explanation, i am exited to see the theory behind this experiment to be discovered.

I feel like if this were to be ever used, they would design engines that are significantly more efficient. This is probably the equivalent of all those shitty bulbs Edison didn't show off to the world, before he perfected his version of the Incandescent Bulb.

[Aytex]

the hype around this died down  

[goodtofufriday]

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

If i recall correctly there was a paper published already proving there was an opposite reaction. The particals produced as an opposing reaction phase through the walls of the em drive and are difficult to detect. Nasa agreed with their conclusion. 

 

Ill link to it when im on a pc

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-paper-claims-that-the-em-drive-doesn-t-defy-newton-s-3rd-law-after-all

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807

 

Here is the article I read explaining how there is in fact an opposing reaction that been discovered. 

[Vode]

13 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

Well, I guess I have cause to get a bit more excited about this.

I still need to do more checking, and I'm still gonna wait to see how this develops (If NASA tests this successfully in space, well...), but... Damn.

 

Pictures are recorded EM waves.

 

EDIT: Good god people, this is largely quantum mechanical phenomena. Don't just repeat repeat buzzwords saying it "breaks the laws of physics," it's more complicated than that.

Well there are two possibilities (you can't just rule one out without scientific proof)

 

1) Newtons law is incorrect (opens a giant can of 10 meter worms)

 

2) Newtons law is correct and there is another unknown phenomenon in play)

 

The second one is much more likely but of course the press will use the first because it makes a better headline.. *sigh*

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

I'm assuming quantum physics is at play, seeing as how photons do have momentum and can knock electrons off atoms. I am currently learning about it in solid-state physics, though as to how it propels entire metallic structures compared to just electrons is what baffles me at the moment.

[Dash Lambda]

23 minutes ago, Vode said:

Well there are two possibilities (you can't just rule one out without scientific proof.

 

1) Newtons law is incorrect (opens a giant can of 10 meter worms).

2) Newtons law is correct and there is another unknown phenomenon in play.

 

The second one is much more likely but of course the press will use the first because it makes a better headline.. *sigh*

I wish there was some requirement for scientific competency in media, the world would be a better place if people either knew what they were talking about or didn't claim to.

 

Pertaining to the RFRC thruster, it's my understanding that its behavior suggests the validity of certain interpretations in quantum mechanics, a highly active field that we're still figuring out. Why people have trouble recognizing that, I have no idea.

 

In fact, skimming through the article now, it even explains that...

Oy vey.

[VerticalDiscussions]

This is some pretty awesome news! Altough, wouldnt this mean that pidgeons would like to nest inside the thrusters and maybe get jolted once or twice?

[dalekphalm]

33 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

This is some pretty awesome news! Altough, wouldnt this mean that pidgeons would like to nest inside the thrusters and maybe get jolted once or twice?

How would the Pidgeons get inside, in this hypothetical scenario? All the pictures I've seen show the thruster as a contained sealed structure.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

They would beak it until it fell off xD. The magnetism to achieve unreal addiction :p.

[Weak1ings]

59 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

This is some pretty awesome news! Altough, wouldnt this mean that pidgeons would like to nest inside the thrusters and maybe get jolted once or twice?

Because it uses microwaves, if any bird managed to get in (somehow) It'd be cooked like the microwave does!  Anyone up for an early thanksgiving and fried eggs? 

[Coaxialgamer]

Note that it doesn't necessarily break newton's third law.  Quantum effects could be a possible explanation ,  which would mean it might not be any more physics-defying than a traditional rocket motor 

[Coaxialgamer]

16 hours ago, SirFlamenco said:

 

I just want scientific proof, not a weird metal piece saying we can travel in time

 

15 hours ago, SirFlamenco said:

You are all assuming it happened but no actual proof... hot bakin fake

here you go :http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

 

published by nasa , and peer reviewed.

And a video of it in action wouldn't be very telling , as it only produces about a few mNewton of thrust.

[straight_stewie]

16 hours ago, Weak1ings said:

It defies Newton's third law, which states that everything must have an equal and opposite reaction.

According to the law, for a system to produce thrust, it has to push something out the other way. The EM Drive doesn't do this.

This is an interesting thing, and I've been thinking for a while that, if quantum field theory and energy mass conversion is accurate, then it should be possible to generate thrust without emitting any particles (mass). 

Quantum field theory states, well, among alot of really complex things, that particles are just energy waves in a particle field. Energy mass conversion is simply the well known equation E= MC² , which simply suggests that matter can be converted to energy or, when rearranged to M = E/C² that energy can be converted to matter. 

If the above two statements are accurate, then it should be possible to generate thrust by exciting a quantum field with only energy, creating waves, and thus particles (matter, mass). Beyond that, by modifying the characteristics of the generated waves it would be theoretically possible to have star wars-esque space flight, or perhaps star trek-esque holodecks.

[SirFlamenco]

11 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

 

here you go :http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

 

published by nasa , and peer reviewed.

And a video of it in action wouldn't be very telling , as it only produces about a few mNewton of thrust.

I don't see actual pictures of this in action, so still fake IMO. A video would be great though.

[Coaxialgamer]

Just now, SirFlamenco said:

I don't see actual pictures of this in action, so still fake IMO. A video would be great though.

it's not exactly something you can film . This is not a traditionnal motor . It's very similar to ion drives , which accelerate very slowly ( over weeks or months ) , but can run for pretty much the entire trip , unlike rockets , which only run for a few minutes at a time.

This motor produces 1.2mN per kW , which is tiny , but can get you very far if it runs for months , as there is nothing slowing you down in space.

 

I just showed you a peer reviewed paper published by nasa , on an invention that was created by some random inventor in 1999 ( ie not someone financially or politically interesting ), that says that the drive works . 

If that isn't enough proof for you , then i don't know what is , especially in the digital age , where any video footage can be tampered with.

 

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, SirFlamenco said:

I don't see actual pictures of this in action, so still fake IMO. A video would be great though.

Errr - what? A picture wouldn't tell you anything.

 

1. A picture is a still frame - a single moment - you cannot always see motion in a still frame.

2. It produces so little force that even if you were in the room standing right beside the device, you couldn't see it move with your eye.

[Weak1ings]

18 minutes ago, SirFlamenco said:

I don't see actual pictures of this in action, so still fake IMO. A video would be great though.

I see a troll, I don't even need pictures to detect him.

A video would be like watching paint dry.