STEMtards Still Buttmad

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAKON
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

so even though this works, is it scalable? can i make a manned spacecraft that is propelled solely with meme drives such that i can go to io in less time than if i were to use chemical rockets?

I don't want to ask how it works

I just want to know how to make my own

It's not about the time, it's about the efficiency. The main reason we haven't put a base on the moon or a man or Mars yet isn't because it takes too long, it's because it's too expensive

is it resistant to russian hackers deactivating the atoms?

It literally IS Russian hackers. They already promised long ago to alter the laws of physics to wipe the US off the face of the Earth. This is just the beginning.

build what you see in the image and put it in your microwave

The Russians will create a GUI Interface using Visual Basic

Why is this shitty meme still posted? It was btfo ages ago by countless people and there are numerous videos on youtube that explain why it doesn't work and why it can't work.

>STMtards
Fix´ed m8 yo welcome

Because the Chinese claim to have tested it in space, and plan to use it on satellites soon.

www.techtimes.com/articles/190067/20161226/china-confirms-emdrive-research-plans-to-use-the-technology-on-chinese-satellites-as-soon-as-possible.htm

Stay mad faggot. The NASA tested it, China tested it and it works. Unlike your brain.

Because you can 'explain' why it doesn't work only through theory, and this has already busted theory. If this thing works, you have to change the theory, so you can't disprove it through anything old, famalam.

Yes, there could be undiscovered physical phenomenon involved. This could be similar to the discovery of radiation in the late 1800s.

except it doesn't do anything unique that lasers RF plasma generators haven't been doing already.

my bet is that it is ionizing the cavity and the scientists at NASA are too stupid to notice. Veeky Forums 1: NASA: 0 stay BTFO

Shame they didn't say it worked, isn't it?What theory has it busted? It doesn't work. As in, no one can get it to work. Including the Chinese.

Keep hoovering up the bullshit you autistic fuckwits.

They said it did work.

...

>except it doesn't do anything unique that lasers RF plasma generators haven't been doing already.
Except you don't know that, nobody knows. Neither lasers nor plasma generators produce anomalous thrust, so while it can really be a measurement error, it can also be some unknown phenomenon, there's no conclusive evidence of either yet. Every 'proof' that it doesn't work so far is based on an obviously false assumption that if it doesn't react with something we know it doesn't react with anything at all, violating the laws of conservation and their mother. It could be working off dank memes for all we know, it's just that nobody can figure that out cause there ain't no meme theory yet.

math does it all the time. isn't it reverse induction or something? proof by contradiction?

The Chinese got it working. Your next line is going to be 'you can't trust the Chinese', isn't it?

It's a thing in philosophy.

It's just logic. If A is not B, and we have A, then we don't have B. The argument is about whether we actually have A.

It works, however it's one of the least efficient ways to move an object around. The sheer energy it requires to produce any meaningful amount of thrust far exceeds its purpose.

It's not where they're wrong, what they do is like claiming that triangle can't have all 3 angles be 90 degrees because the sum must be 180 while nobody really said that the triangle is flat. The proof is valid, but only under certain conditions that are blindly assumed to be true when they very well may be not.

Let's just say that if they define Tian'anmen events as an act of terrorism, we'll need to know what is their definition of "working"

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAKON

It's not a fucking triangle if it's not on a flat plane God

idiot

>what is non-Euclidian geometry

i don't know

Or rather.

An EMdrive only needs solar panels.
Rockets need a shit load of fuel which is expensive to get in space because weight.

>claims to have tested it in space
is not the same thing as
>have shown results of testing it in space in a verified manner

let's not forget the STAP debacle

>it's because it's too expensive

Its expensive because after apollo 13 NASA budget got cut down into pieces and NASA was left with a horrible infrastructure to carry on a human colonization of space, so they contempted themselves with scientific exploration while trying to find a method to have regular space travels without fuel stations in the middle.

I say test it some more. Put it up against a control, like a version without the cone shape, or some other part changed, and see if that makes any thrust. Then you can point to an outside factor if the control still makes thrust. Next, you can also start playing around with the design more, make a prototype that is easier to replicate and make an exact copy of to test and retest.

This chink claim sounds more like propaganda, like "we had a successful test in space" is actually "we tested it in space, and the test was completed, successfully. It never DID make thrust, but we concluded the test without fault, so it was successful!" Now popsci is fanning the flames with claims it COULD be being tested on the X-37 spaceplane. Great job there PS, go back to selling hoverboards and 9/11 debunks.

So what is the problem with testing it more? If its the cost, open a god damn crowdfunding page. If it doesn't work, meh, who gives a fuck. If it does work, no only do we get SPEHS, we get the possibility of perpetual motion machines. Fuck nuclear fusion when you have infinite energy!