2018 is the year brainlets finally understand this

Prove me wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xJsl_klqVh0
motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmzmpa/emdrive-nasa-impossible-propulsion-system-explained
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It really does work btw.

Nobody dares touch this thread because you know I'm right.

youtube.com/watch?v=xJsl_klqVh0

Quantum vacuum fluctuation.
That's what I heard suggested from the magic engine, that sounded convincing I think.

I'm not sure conservation of momentum has to be true so long as energy is conserved. Newton was close but not quite right about plenty of things.

Someone on Veeky Forums said it was BS because it produced the same thrust regardless of orientation. Haven't found a source but it would throw the inventor's theory of how it works out the window.

It's heat fucking with the measurement. All measurements are just barely above the noise level, regardless of power input.

Noether's Theorem clearly states that if physical laws are independent of position, then momentum is conserved. This thing would break momentum conservation if it worked, meaning it either doesn't work, or doing physics is impossible in this universe. Since doing physics is clearly possible, this thing doesn't work.

>It's heat fucking with the measurement.
Not convincing.
> All measurements are just barely above the noise level, regardless of power input.
Not actually true if I recall correctly.
>Noether's Theorem
Maybe it doesn't apply here, or maybe it does in a way that brainlets like you or I can't fully comprehend.

Are you saying the Chinese are bullshitting everyone?

Because they say it works, and I'm inclined to believe they won't intentionally make themselves look foolish with a hoax.

>Maybe it doesn't apply here, or maybe it does in a way that brainlets like you or I can't fully comprehend.
If Noether's theorem doesn't apply then you can't use physics to explain this thing.

>Are you saying the Chinese are bullshitting everyone?
I believe that the measurements are being reported truthfully and honestly. But that's a long shot from saying "this thing works".

it's this generation's Cold Fusion. Wishful thinking leading to bad science.

Wake me up when someone funds a test regime in space.

>or maybe it does in a way that brainlets like you or I can't fully comprehend

To every differentiable symmetry generated by local actions, there corresponds a conserved current.

This guy knows his shit.

Just pasted from Wikipedia I'm afraid.

I was hoping to demonstrate my point that properly understanding this stuff is no mean feat.

If your location is irrelevant for the laws of physics that govern the universe, then it follows that there is no way to tell if you're moving at a constant rate. Like cruising down a perfectly smooth highway.

Basically, momentum is a measurement for how much you're moving through space. But if the physical laws don't care about where you are, there can be nothing that changes momentum by itself. That's basically what Noether's law formalizes. If there is a symmetry in physical law (X doesn't matter for the physics at hand), then something which measures how much X is changing can only change when disturbed by something external.

=> symmetries lead to conservation laws
time symmetry causes energy conservation
space symmetry causes momentum conservation
directional symmetry causes angular momentum conservation

>there can be nothing that changes momentum by itself
There always has to be some thing to "push against" right?

Can that not just be "the rest of the universe" if the rest of the universe is actually filled with quantum vacuum fluctuations or similar "ether" rather than the vacuum we normally think off?

No, because nothing in quantum mechanics or quantum field theory can break momentum conservation, because QM and QFT obey that same symmetry: nothing depends directly on position.

Its interacting with the neutrinos. That is why there's some confusion related to direction and erratic test data - results depend on its orientation relative to the nearest largest source. That, or something vibrates causing false thrust measurements.

>break momentum conservation
I not saying break it. But let the "ether" do the conserving.

There are other theories about pilot waves but I'm not sure I like them as much.

motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmzmpa/emdrive-nasa-impossible-propulsion-system-explained

>>Noether's Theorem
>Maybe it doesn't apply here, or maybe it does in a way that brainlets like you or I can't fully comprehend
You sound like the worst of brainless here, while calling other brainless

*claps*
Enjoy your thread.

The ratio of power to thrust has the units of velocity. For a car, it's the velocity relative to the highway. For a ship, it's velocity relative to the water. Whatever it is you're pushing against.

If it pushed against "quantum vacuum fluctuations" or "the Ether", then we could find a "preferred reference frame" by seeing how the thrust varied with motion. Good bye, Relativity.

Anyway, Sawyer claims that (disregarding losses), hovering at constant altitude takes no power at all! Good bye, Equivalence principle. You "pay" only for changes in kinetic energy. Kinetic energy relative to what???
My first clue the "inventor" didn't understand physics at all.

Just imagine:
>emdrive works
>any slightly competent backyard mechanic can build a relativistic KKV superweapon
>space ancapistan becomes reality

If energy is conserved momentum by definition must be concerned

Yup, welcome back to the wild wild west

>then we could find a "preferred reference frame"
What is it that makes this true when pushing against our theoretical ether and not, for example, a magnetic field of the earth or sun?

That was my point. Or perhaps the thing I don't really understand.

What I meant I guess it that conservation of energy seems the more fundamental and conservation of momentum is something that just arises in most situations as a natural consequence but perhaps shouldn't be assumed if energy is being transformed as appears in this case spookily from electromagnetism into movement.

When we push against the magnetic field of the Earth or Sun, ultimately we are pushing against the body generating the field.

"Pushing against the vacuum" would allow measuring the velocity of something we cannot otherwise detect.

Energy and momentum are always conserved together. In the Einstein Equations they're wrapped into a single term, in fact.

If you squirt electromagnetic radiation is one direction, your antenna recoils the other way. Photon rocket.
When something absorbs the radiation, it gets shoved in the direction the radiation was going. Solar sail.
In other words, radiation (whether you consider it photons or waves) carries momentum equal to the energy divided by the speed of light. You can't conserve one without conserving the other. No "spookiness" involved.

One of the basic thought-experiments showing the light has mass (and momentum) consists of a closed tube with a flashlight at one end and a black-painted panel at the other end. The flashlight's battery gradually runs down. (It loses mass). The black panel warms up. (It gains mass.)
So we've moved mass from one end of the tube to the other? Which means we've moved the center-of-mass of a closed system? That would violate momentum conservation. The apparatus (flashlight, tube, and paint) must move SLIGHTLY towards the flashlight end to compensate! And it does so because the flashlight recoils from the photons it emits and that force acts during the time it takes for the light to reach the other end and exert a compensating force.
It all works out if you go through the arithmetic.

It would be a magical wonderful thing if the EM drive worked
a shame it doesn't due to all the laws it violates

Laws are made to be broken.

I came across a bit of doggerel once.

Millions of laws legislators have spoken
A handful the Creator sent
The former are continually broken
The latter can't even be bent.

Science having laws is about the most unscientific thing possible.

The thrust of this damn thing is negligable compared to the power input required.

Where's the evidence friendo?

Can anyone tell me if this thing is trebel clef or bass clef.

>Someone on Veeky Forums said it was BS because it produced the same thrust regardless of orientation
This. It screams of an application error.

ITT
>nobodies thinking with portals

bump

Newtons are barely good on game engine physics simulation, but... My moma told me she gotta be right.

>>One of the basic thought-experiments showing the light has mass (and momentum) consists of a closed tube with a flashlight at one end and a black-painted panel at the other end. The flashlight's battery gradually runs down. (It loses mass). The black panel warms up. (It gains mass.)
what

A dead battery weighs less than a charged one.
A compressed spring weighs more than the same spring, uncompressed.
A hot cup of coffee (lidded to prevent evaporation) weighs more than a cold cup.

Trivial in all these examples, but true. Losing a couple of grams of mass was all it took to destroy two cities in Japan. E = Mc^2