Does it fuck up physics or does it not?

>outrageous claims necesitates outrageous explanations
how are these claims outrageous?
You still stuck in babby newtonian mechanics? Momentum and energy conservation go out the window with general relativity.

for people who are not undergrads anymore, mass = anything that affects spacetime and is affected by the geometry of spacetime.

Photons don't have inertial mass, this is basic special relativity.

>> have degrees in aerospace engineering and astrophysics

Been researching em drive for a bit. Im convinced Mike McCulloch is a quack. He's an engineer with no background in the quantum phenomena he claims are occurring. His derivation of the thrust generated based on Q factor, wavelength, and geometry utilize a modified (of his own design) classical Newtonian treatment of photons.

Somehow his equation manages to produce values on the same order of magnitude as observed by previous designs. Im still in the process of investigating this, but it seems really ad hoc and suspicious.

>Momentum and energy conservation
momentum and energy conservation are the basis for all machines ever

want to make one that doesnt? well you better make it super obviosu taht it doesnt
or else, you better walk by allllll the way back to the veeeery begginign of stupid little kids who know nothing school... oh wait! youre already there, ;)

ok these niggas are trolling, dont debate them

sweet argument brah.

>Also sage, because memedrive is cancer.

>these niggas are trolling
OBJECTIVELY PROVE ME WRONG FAGGOTBASTARD

only way to do it: name one piece of technological machine, much lest an engine that doesnt obey conservation of energy

protip: you cant, because youre babby mode than never attended college

Alcubierre drives.

now fuck off scum.

>Muh negative energy

>name one piece of technological machine, much lest an engine that doesnt obey conservation of energy

the universe

>Alcubierre drives.
existing tehconoligcal machines faggot

those are more fantasy than a girl talkign to you

universe is not a human made machien

>existing tehconoligcal machines faggot
doesn't matter, it's theoretically viable.

>universe is not a human made machien
doesn't matter, it's still a system that creates energy over time.

you got rekt m8, just stop posting. You'll forget this happened very soon.

The symmetries of the universe enforce conservation of energy. As it possesses these symmetries, it conserves energy. Unless the meme-drive works, in which case fuck these symmetries and we have to start entirely over again.

[Since we would have to start from literally the beginning all over again, I don't think anyone would be actually upset that the meme-drive works since it would result in a massive hunt for what we got ridiculously, though subtly, wrong in all of physics; this is good for pretty much everyone's careers and puts forth a plethora of new possibilities. The problem,however, is that this is incredibly unlikely to be the case; everything else ever observed obeys conservation laws. This then is the source of the anger: someone is running around spouting what is overwhelmingly likely to be bullshit and the laymen eat it up and then ask why it no work when someone eventually gets around to demonstrating the thrust was either a leaky cavity (in which case it is throwing out photons) or some measurement error the experiments did not account for (surface currents coupling to local magnetic fields, ets.).]

no it doesn't retard

the time translational symmetry ensure the conservation of energy

but General relativity allows the space and time to get curved. So it is no longer the case that the objects are moving in a translationally invariant background.

>doesn't matter, it's theoretically viable.
"I can play with the signs of terms in an equation" is a far cry from being "theoretically viable." The assumptions upon which the Alcubierre drive is based have no basis in any observation ever and rely upon exotic forms of matter that are were assumed to exist simply because they make the drive possible. That is not "theoretically viable," that is making shit up and seeing what happens.

>doesn't matter, it's still a system that creates energy over time.
No it doesn't. If you think that is the case, you are bigger moron than I thought.

wait what the fuck
empty space has an energy
energy is never created
empty space is created as the universe expands
what the FUCK

The problem with energy conservation in GR is that it only deals with open systems and thus it does not have to have conservation of energy or momenta as whatever the system is coupled to may furnish the missing parts. If we require the spacetime to become a Minkowski spacetime infinitely far from the system or impose periodic boundary conditions, energy conservation is recovered.

>it's theoretically viable.
some estimates put the energy needed by an alcubierre drive like more than there has even been in the whole wide universe... TIMES TEN

its not feasible

anything feasible obeys physics and thats the cold hard truth

virtual particles guys.
virtual particles.

>the current theories don't explain how this could be possible
>therefore it's impossible

Remember when science was empirical?

hey this is a shit thread, so I thought I'd shit it up further with a quesiton.

How do we actually know that the universe is expanding?

Everything we look at, is moving away from us at a speed proportional to it's distance.

Search terms: Hubble's Law

thank you

follow up shitty question
are all particles relating solely to the nuclei of atoms, or do they appear elsewhere?

appear elsewhere
(c'mon even electrons aren't in the nucleus [most of the time])

sheeit man idk physics gimme a break

We don't actually know, but the theory is supported by the observation of "red shifted" spectra from remote objects. This implies that they are moving away from us.

So what happened with this thing? Is there any recent news on it?

>We don't actually know, but the theory is supported by the observation of "red shifted" spectra from remote objects. This implies that they are moving away from us.

More importantly, they are red shifted to an extent that correlates to objects moving away from each other (it's really only noticeable on the scale of super clusters) at FASTER than the speed of light.

Since that would seem to violate everything we know, we have concluded that things aren't moving at faster than c, but rather that space itself is expanding.

It may seem like semantics at first, but it's really not.

I think someone less sensationalist did their own experiments and found they could measure a thrust, but they were honest and said they couldn't rule out measurement error given how small the signal was.

sounds like they really just dont know what the fuck is going on to be honest

There are new theories that don't mean anything at present and there's a peer-reviewed paper in the works.

Yes a reasonable theory, backed by some observation and modelling.

>

joke's on you, bob boob, my microwave can make the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs

Mightiest of keks!

Hey fuckwad, it consumes electrical energy to produce thrust. There is no momentum and energy conservation problems, and its not a perpetual motion/over-unity device. The thing that baffles erryone is the apparent lack of propellant needed to produce the thrust not the lack of energy.

Producing thrust without propellant does violate conservation of momentum, at least in Newtonian physics.

Considering energy and mass are almost indistinguishable at the quantum level I wouldn't be surprised if a similar connection can be made between energy and momentum.

>meme drive

TOP KEK user
WELL PLAYED DESU~
WELL PLAYED

Isn't it similar to a solar sail?