ruthless
Timekeeper
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, it will eventually be debunked. Someone will find a way to show human error was the culprit for the anomalous result. So there really was no thrust all along. Just like the mistaken UFO crash at Roswell that was shown to be a weather balloon.
Where did you come up with this? I'm willing to wager that you do not understand why the engine has been hypothesized not to create thrust, and yet you are more than willing to create a theory out of no where.
Einstein's comment was a sarcastic remark and I understand his sentiments.
It is a common tactic used by several industries to hinder or eliminate more efficient products ( inventions/inventors ).
The retractable syringe being one example. Tesla Motors being another.
Wouldn't be hard to convince some people why that engine doesn't work, have it vanish - debunked and forgotten - into some corporate/government labyrinth, when the engine did in fact - work all along.
Yeah, that can happen I suppose. Does the conjecture have anything to do with this thread, however?
But go back and read the article. Read it critically and for content. After you do that does the article make any sense? Look at it, copy it, paste it, delete all unsupported opinions, conjecture, exaggeration, inconsistency, self-contradiction, false statement and general bullshit and look at what you have left. Look close. The article really is poorly written, probably by a college freshman. It's sitting out there pretty plain to see if you look.
(We're examining the article itself because that's where the information for this thread is supposed to be coming from.)
Darby;
It appears you find fault with this article but does that extend to the premise?
I would really like to hear your opinion on that. I've been clear, I think, that my education in 'physics' had been from a classical viewpoint. My college physics was an A to Z class and the professor stayed with the classical, Newtonian, physics with atomic structure and such included but, I can't recall any mention of quantum anything. This was the early 80's so, was it even covered much in textbooks then? Since then, I've picked up more information but still not enough. From my Newtonian viewpoint, I have the question; If every action has a corresponding opposite reaction, can that be extended to include quantum action? EM energy transmission? I have a little TT story of my own I have played around with but have never considered it in a completed form to share or publish, and in it, I assert that the equal and opposite reaction includes photons. When a photon is emitted an opposite anti-photon is emitted and that accounts for the "Dark Energy" physicists claim exists. But in the quantum level it is not equal and is the genesis of the FTL "tachyon". I would be 'pleasantly' surprised if EM energy produces thrust by an opposite action as I surmised in my story. Or, am I simply off my rocker?
The entire idea that we have found something that seems to go against the the principle of conservation of momentum just seems crazy to me.
The very high specific thrusts resulting from such second generation (2G)devices must be subject to the law of conservation of energy. It follows therefore, that there must be a mechanism which limits the acceleration of any vehicle propelled by a 2G EmDrive thruster.
A mechanism which limits the acceleration of a very high Q EmDrive thruster has been described, which illustrates how the thruster complies with the law of conservation of energy.