What's so difficult to grasp, brainlets?

What's going to happen whenever it works flawlessly in space, and we start building satellite arrays utilizing the drive for propulsion?

Wir müssen wissen,
wir werden wissen!

EM drive working would be as unlikely as someone like Donald Trump being elected President.

/x/ might be right with the whole mandella thing.
If I wake up to Shawyer's smiling face I'll kill myself.

Brexit approves!

OP ure hot af

Proof of concept or shut the fuck up.

have you actually read his "paper"? it's a vixra-worthy mess; completely incoherent and precisely what'd you expect from a fucking electrical engineer. he does shit like mixing up frames, assuming a universal rest frame, etc. this is perpetual motion 2.0

>implying the thrust that the ayydrive produces cares about your subjective opinion and engineer-hating.

Out of all these threads about the emDrive I've seen, I'm not sure whether a single person can explain its mechanics.

And no, I can't. I've read nothing on it.

>assuming a universal rest frame
>subjectively incorrect

lol

Well the guy who invented it seems to care or he wouldn't have written about a supposed theoretical justification. The guy would seem less cranky if he was honest and said "I have no clue what's happening, please investigate these experimental results".

I'm not upset about this situation at all though. If the memedrive actually works I'll be too excited at the possible free energy utopia to care about anything else and if it doesn't I'll just have another reason to make fun of engineers (like Electrogravitics).

Are you still talking about the evidently flawed theory?

Link to paper?

Cool story bro, but EMdrive would still allow you to get UNLIMITED POWER!

>detected thrust is several orders of magnitude greater than any possible error
>IT CAN'T WORK REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

It's OK user. Einstein had similar reactions to the idea of a bound universe and to 'spooky action at a distance.'

ikr, isn't that great? I say embrace it, faggot.

>it uses pilot wave theory to move
>bohmian mechanics just BTFO Veeky Forums

Should this board just be deleted for being so utterly and completely rekt?

This thing will produce new physics, just very mildly new physics.

The stuff in the paper is nonsense. The thrust it produces is fairly minuscule. To be produced by propellant would require nano-grams of exhaust. This would make it extremely challenging to actually observe as a weight loss.

The thing has thrust because of nano-grams of exhaust, that's probably the reality, but the new physics comes from explaining why it's producing this exhaust, which is less clear.

>they exist in a separate frame of reference

Wew lad.

UNLIMITED POWER means that literally anyone could destroy the earth.

Wait, why is everyone assuming that this either doesn't work or is infinite power? Isn't there a much more likely possibility that this is some form of directly converting the energy into thrust, à la photon engine except much better?

>directly converting the energy into thrust, à la photon engine except much better
is what it's supposed to do.
Infinite energy immediately follows from this because just accelerating continuously will lead to the craft gaining more kinetic energy than you put in to power the device (rather quickly, actually). From that point on you can do whatever you want with the craft to get energy back out (like crashing into a wall or something).
The reason this is not possible with a photon rocket is that the energy to thrust ratio is exactly low enough that the gain in kinetic energy would only offset the energy lost by creating the photons if you were already travelling at the speed of light.

Why? (To any of your post)

You're assuming that if you provide it a constant amount of power it will produce a constant acceleration, regardless of velocity and reference frame, yet I've seen nothing that hints at that.

Say you strap tons of them to a dynamo, they take less energy to run than they produce so you would just be generating more power indefinitely, assuming it was in space.

Not him, but are you saying that if it were set up right and not used for space thrusters and some kind of "energy factory" in the vacuum of space, you could literally make a electricity goes in - more electricity comes out system only using a dynamo? Is there anything in the paper that supports that?

Maybe I'm just reading wrong

I think so, because it produces thrust it's not like those perpetual motion devices that would require 0 friction to function. It might take time to become efficient while you wait for it to accelerate, but I don't know [spoiler] I'm not a rocket scientist [/spoiler]

The acceleration will not be constant when seen from a stationary observer. This happens because of the finite speed of light: the acceleration will decrease the faster the craft moves (for a stationary observer!) since it cannot reach the speed of light.
What is assumed to be constant is the acceleration measured by someone travelling with the ship: if the craft stops accelerating and moves at a constant velocity, a crewman on the ship then has a perfectly valid reference frame in which the drive is motionless and not affected by outside forces, the same situation as before the ship started travelling, and should get the same results when measuring the drive's properties. That is why it's not expected that the energy to thrust ratio changes depending on how long you accelerated.
This of course assumes special relativity is true and there is no preferred reference frame. arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494.pdf actually does the calculation and also has some discussion.

What if it levitates? Does that contradict general relativity?

>Experience is flawed because it contradicts Theory

How does it feel to fail to grasp the fundamental principle of Science ?

its been around since 2001.

it still doesnt work

this is going to give people so much ammo to hit nasa with even though nasa isn't involved at all

reddit will look like fucking retards for supporting this which is nice.

This seems like the least unlikely possibility

>it still doesnt work
Why do you mean by this, the entire problem is that it keeps working every time they test it

its like watching a fat man with a really small penis get frustrated because he can't ever get his peepee wet

and also...

wrong

>Implying even a tenth of this board knows enough physics to even understand Copenhagen vs pilot wave

>start harvesting unlimited power through meme drives
>no one realizes it runs on human souls, eventually depleting them

I don't understand how. It still requires power to run. Even if you drive a generator with an EM drive wouldn't the power output be lower than the drive power consumption?

>wouldn't it be lower

Yes

Could some one provide me the link to the paper?

>he accepts meme matter which basically is aether 2.0 and bound to be debunked, but doesn't accept meme drive despite more proof is provided for the latter than for the former

AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

I keep telling you people, it is worthless until it's in commercial use. The day it's an active component in a machine that we can all observe, it's real.

There's a LOT of backup for dark matter though.

Except evidence.

Theoretical science was a mistake

No, not saying it shouldn't be done, but people jumping on the bandwagon and treating it as a certainty, is the mistake.

>Muh rotation curves
>Muh bullet cluster
>Muh Powerspectrum
>Muh Lambda-CDM

It's likely that there's some error, yes.

There's also several explanations for how it works that don't violate Newton.

It could also break Newton's and not give a fuck about it. Newton's could end up being relative.

phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html

>m-muh measurement errors! t-there must be a mistake, m-my model c-cant be wrong!!!

ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2160-plenty-of-dark-matter-near-the-sun

it works.. but its use has dire consequences.

PopSci Trace just did a vid on it
youtube.com/watch?v=xWfeE7l1Wxo

literally just finished watching it. He stole it all from this thread...

>This experiment and theory don't match!
>Surely this means the experiment is at fault
kek and there's people claiming Kuhn wasn't right.

Why do you write like a nigger?

Simple explanatory slideshow.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY&feature=youtu.be

Indeed, no idea why everyone is so butthurt over it.

Truly we are ready for a higher form of physics

This is silly and has no practical applications because it takes the same amount of power to slow it down. By law of conservation, strapping two of those devices to a spaceship would not be plausible because momentum is squared

Are you a complete moron? Why are you even on this board?

God these videos of old nutjobs with obviously no idea about physics beyond some super basic school knowledge are the worst thing this planet has to offer.

You're talking about the creator of the EmDrive - he will be remembered longer than Einstein.

>If I wake up to Shawyer's smiling face I'll kill myself.

wakey wakey!

The ayydrive is the Great Filter.

...

I'll believe anything that you can prove works.

>those slides about how energy-momentum is still conserved
>"yeah we create these electromagnetic waves with momentum out of nothing but what do you mean it's not conserved"
>"energy is conserved because heat or something lmao"

Owain REEEEE

>it wasn't vaccines that created autism it was EM drive experiments
you should hire a mercenary and try to overthrow the EM drive corporation.

Why was this funny? I think I'm becoming retarded.

Someone explain to me how does it imply unlimited power? You still need energy to run it.

Because physicists already invented dark matter and dark energy to account for two instances their calculations were shit.

I am still waiting for the dark propulsion that explains the meme drive lol.

except we found dark matter.

Yeah we dark found it.

As in we found nothing, but if you add some dark something then you find something.

You have to admire the balls of the guy behind dark energy, though. It takes a brazen man to go up before the world and claim that there are five invisible particles for every visible one.

Then the next guy comes on stage and says, "That's nothing, get a load of this..."

It wasn't a claim, it was a verified observation with huge reproducibility.

>I have this great model! It relates the mass of an object to its orbit!
>That's not what we observe in the galaxy...
>WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE'S MORE MASS.

My best guess is they bounce against the outer end, combine and hit the front end at a greater net force to move it forward. Kind of like scooting across the floor in a cart by jutting forward.

arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

quit dark posting

Newton was a fucking idiot

>> we found nothing
> what are neutrinos

What the fuck is wrong with physicists these days?

>adding up to dark matter
>adding up to dark energy
>DON'T HAVE A SINGLE CLUE HOW GRAVITY FULLY WORKS YET

yeah k

Well clearly what we need is a theory of dark gravity

Dark matter explains the observations without any changes to the well established GR nor the extremely elegant standard model of cosmology. Matter that only interacts gravitationally is not particularly implausible. It's discomforting, which is probably why you feel so strongly about it, but by no means something that is a lot to buy. Distributions of dark matter can be observed fairly well via gravitational lensing. It's not like every piece of baryonic matter is shielded with dark matter in the same way (which would indicate a strong correlation between the two). Also it's not like nobody has ever doubted dark matter, it's probably the one established idea in physics that is criticized the most. There are countless attempts at correcting aspects of GR and cosmology to account for the offset created by dark matter. The problem is, none of those attempts comes even close to fit as well as dark matter. All of them usually only explain those aspects that motivated the corrections, but not the whole range of phenomena.

heul hitler

>five invisible particles for every visible one.

But user, all particles are invisible. We only ever see their effects. I mean has anyone ever seen a nucleus? No, but we can preform a scattering experiments and show that an object exists that has the properties that define a nucleus. It's the same here, sure you can't [math] see [/math] dark matter (since it doesn't use the em interaction) but you can do some experiments that show an object with all the properties of dark matter must exist.

>I have this great theory that is a vast generalisation on an existing theory.
>It holds up well everywhere, except for this one peculiarity.

Do you really think that we should abandon an incredibly successful theory such as GR just because it requires the incredibly small assumption that there is a particle that only interacts via gravitation?

>epicycles explains the observations without any changes to the well established Ptolemaic model nor the extremely elegant model of heavenly spheres
haha

To be fair there is a more advanced theory that claims the momentum is transferred from the outside system through a long standing hypothesis on relativistic pressure

That's kind of like not at fucking all the same or even correct because you are using friction with the floor to jut your cart forward.

In the same way that, neglecting air resistance and machine inefficiency, keeping your foot on the gas and accelerating your car from 10 to 80 mph produces a net gain in energy.

Ie: it doesn't.