8
154

[–] TibbyTurtle 8 points 154 points (+162|-8) ago 

If it weren't for the chinese initially testing it and proving it works and turning it into somewhat of a curiosity, western scientists would still be ignoring it and deriding it as quackery. It makes me wonder how many other potentially big scientific discoveries have been lost simply because scientists would rather mock or ignore anything that goes against the institutionally established scientific narratives of the time rather than actually test it out and see.

6
56

[–] wellendowedduckling 6 points 56 points (+62|-6) ago 

This happens more than anyone would like to admit. Like the earth being flat or the solar system revolving around us, people are stubborn and don't like being told they are wrong.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
20

[–] 3081100 1 points 20 points (+21|-1) ago 

The solar system does revolve around us depending on your frame of reference.

0
5

[–] UffishThought 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I honestly doubt that people are actively trying to bury this in denial.

 

The extraordinary nature of the claims made by Shawyer for the EmDrive, and Fetta for the similar Cannae Drive, which seem to violate Conservation of Momentum (akin to being able to move a spaceship by pushing on one of the interior walls), beg for a real peer reviewed paper.

The group that is often referred to as NASA, consists of 5 people, working out of Johnson, with $50,000/year in funding (last I heard). Proper rigging, sifting through data, and analysis can be difficult.

 

The reason I mention the above is that the forces measured are quite small. Now that in of itself is not a problem. Many issues come down to signal to noise ratio for a particular setup - lab work is hard and often frustrating when it comes down to tracking down every source of noise ranging from simple ground loops, to thermal effects, proper calibration of equipment, and so on. Lots of good science comes from examining and sifting through the difficult to find data from the noise floor.

 

However, even when well funded and seemingly cross-checked, it's hard to miss mistakes without lots of outside input - see Superluminal Neutrinos that Break Physics

 

I'm simply saying that this needs to be tested further with better controls, methods, and equipment to see if the 100 watts of RF energy is actually resulting in the incredibly miniscule 100 micro-Newton directional force - and then publish it in a peer reviewed paper that can be examined by others.

 

Seems fair to ask before the investment of lots of time and money by others for claims that contradict existing laws of physics.

0
1

[–] Sops 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Like the earth being flat

The Greek Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of earth in 276 BC and it had been commonly known/accepted that the earth was round well before that. For some reason people started thinking Columbus challenged the idea that the earth was flat, he didn't, he challenged the commonly accepted estimates for the circumference of earth thinking it was actually much smaller, he was wrong.

0
4

[–] Deathstalker 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Cold fusion?

0
17

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Best they've been able to manage so far has been rather warm fusion.

0
6

[–] Kaizervonmaanen 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

They have done extensive testing on the claims

0
1

[–] hotairmakespopcorn 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It makes me wonder how many other potentially big scientific discoveries have been lost simply because scientists would rather mock or ignore anything that goes against the institutionally established scientific narratives of the time rather than actually test it out and see.

LENR is a classic example of this. The ignorant are very quick to claim quackery. The truth is, the DoD and the US Navy have both confirmed it's real and working. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (very reputable high energy lab) has also confirmed it's real and working. Hundreds of lessor known labs around the world have all confirmed it's real and working. Worse yet, MIT's published paper which was used to "prove" LENR is fake, has itself been proven to be fraudulent. A participant in that study has even come forward. Yes, MIT has knowingly published a fraudulent scientific paper without any repercussions. MIT's paper actually confirms a thermal anomaly in it's own graph, exactly as predicted by LENR. Though they declare the experiment a failure. And CalTech, the second institution which attempted to validate LENR, has not only confirmed the original experiments were accidentally invalid, but they have in fact re-created the experiment and published a paper why their original experiments failed (improper doping saturation). Also worth mentioning that DARPA has approved a second round of funding to a LENR project whereby the approval is based on, "increase LENR efficiency." DARPA is approving funding for LENR projects. Not only is DARPA approving projects, but NSF has now lifted its LENR grant ban. NSF is now providing LENR research grants.

Palladium is used in many of these experiments. At the time, there were two major lab suppliers. One of the suppliers had contaminated palladium. All labs which used the contaminated palladium had failed experiments. This supplier was the primary supplier for most of the large, better known labs. The majority of labs which used the second supplier, without contaminated palladium, successfully reproduced the experiment. The major labs, who all failed, declared all the labs with successful experiments as having measuring errors or failed experiments. In other words, they proudly ignored science in the name of science.

Contrary to the lies propagated by western science, we live in a post-fossil fuel world and have since the 1980s.

Scientific hubris is real. Scientists are arrogant fucks.

0
1

[–] rwbj 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Science is based on laws and principles that have proven themselves reliable over, in many cases, centuries of tests. There are no 'narratives' or persuasion involved. Laws are not theories and certainly not hypothesis. They are simple observations. When you throw something up on Earth, it tends to fall back down. This is the sort of thing that becomes a law. Another law is the conservation of momentum. A closed system's momentum remains fixed without expelling something and the momentum generated is directly proportional to the mass and velocity of what is expelled. A rocket expels some fuel, it goes forward. The more fuel that's expelled and the faster it's expelled, the faster the rocket goes.

This engine goes against this law and seems to generate thrust in a closed system. How? The engineer tried to explain it in his paper on the engine. The problem is he has no idea why it does, and that was incredibly clear when reading his paper. The thrust this engine seems to be generating could be coming from a practically infinite number of places, particularly as the base level of thrust is very minuscule. There was 0 reason to think the engine itself is breaking a law of physics we've observed, over millennia, in every single possible physical system.

It's as simple as that. But even going beyond that there's also pragmatic issues. Testing isn't like you fire up the engine, see it's generating thrust and uncork the champagne and start looking for volunteers for our first imminent interstellar future. No, you have to test every single possible angle to make sure it's actually the engine generating the thrust and not some sort of interaction with our environment that's creating the thrust. Even testing it in space will be insufficient as it could still be interacting with our planet, its atmosphere, the sun, etc. This is incredibly expensive and incredibly time consuming. NASA is already desperately underfunded as is.

3
89

[–] Crashmarik 3 points 89 points (+92|-3) ago  (edited ago)

If this is so, it's bigger than a space drive by far. It means something is fundamentally off in physics, and the conservation laws may all be wrong. Or the drive is able to tap or hide momentum someplace that isn't being seen.

Either way that has profound implications much bigger than a 100 micro newton drive.

1
42

[–] Braintrust [S] 1 points 42 points (+43|-1) ago 

Yes, this is definitely the right way to look at this discovery, if it holds to be true.

A very big deal.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 30 points (+30|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
19

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

I would personally like to have all of those things.

0
4

[–] Jamie_Dodgems 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Exactly.

If I can say anything, I can probably say that if this thing actually does generate thrust, then explaining how could very well prove to be one of the major drives for this centuries big revolution in physics.

20th had the Black-Body problem and and particle-wave duality, 21st might very well have the duty of explaining why this thing works when the physics we know of now deem such a thing to be impossible.

0
3

[–] qel33 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Conservation laws may be wrong? Checkmate FPH!

0
49

[–] springboard 0 points 49 points (+49|-0) ago 

Interesting result but I'm still going to put my money on conversation laws simply because we've tested these laws on the very small scales of atoms all the way to the size of the universe and they all hold true. Everywhere we've looked we've seen them to be true. My guess is that there is some source of thrust that researchers haven't considered. Physics is a very large and complex, especially when studying new and not well understood objects, and can be full of surprising, misleading, and subtle results.

I say this as a physicist who would love to see new breaking results, but you also have to be realistic and practical. Plus it's happened many times over the year in many fields that some new effect has been observed, only to be later explained using known theory. This isn't bad because it can lead to new insight or ideas for future designs.

0
7

[–] The_Cat 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I agree. And seriously, breaking Noether's theorem? I don't see it happening.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] springboard 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm hardly an expert but it could be so many things and will definitely lead to new research that we hadn't considered. Especially if it's an effect no one has thought of before.

0
1

[–] Braintrust [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yes, I agree.

1
0

[–] organicgangbang 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

See this is where you become disingenuous. You don't want to see results like the Emdrive confirmed. You don't want to see the popular theory of conversation proven wrong. It would mean that your current understanding is seriously flawed and needs to be reevaluated in a large number of areas. You want your current understanding of physics to be confirmed so that you can keep pretending you have a complete knowledge. Here's the truth: you don't.

0
0

[–] springboard 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Have you ever met a physicist? I am a physicist and work with them every day and not a single one I've ever met has claimed we have a complete knowledge. We know we don't because quantum mechanics and general relativity do not mix but they both exist in a universe so our knowledge cannot be complete. We would absolutely love nothing more than to see our theories wrong. We want to be shown wrong and we all crave it. We absolutely want to have our understanding of the universe be completely flawed because it means there is new stuff to discover!

But, you have to remember that we are also an experimental science and every single experiment we've done, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, on the range of 10^-10 m up to 10^25 m has confirmed our theories. We've searched in many places and the laws always hold. Thus if you suddenly come along and say look at this device that seemingly violates these laws, we are going to be skeptical, especially at a length scale that is very, very well understood. Physics is a vast and complex field and even the best experimenter can miss things, which is most likely what is happening. But, that means we can learn something new. Perhaps there is a new effect of the theory we never considered and can lead to more clever designs of rockets.

And if they somehow discovered something that violates the conversation of momentum, this will blow the whole theory of physics wide open because suddenly it's wrong and yet we have theories that are insanely good approximations almost everywhere we look. Why would the world be like that? It would open the doors to a massive amount of research.

2
23

[–] mastabojangles 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago 

I'm going to be a space cowboy!

0
13

[–] CoJack 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

I'm gonna be a gangster of love!

0
12

[–] itsmemom97 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

I'm gonna be Maurice

0
11

[–] h3lblad3 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

See you, Space Cowboy.

4
16

[–] tentonaraft 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago  (edited ago)

If I'm understanding this right, we may have figured out how to possibly make a warp drive, but have no idea how the Heck we did it. EDIT: Apparently this isn't warp drive.

0
35

[–] Del_Taco 0 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Maybe not a warp drive, but sure as hell one that doesn't need any propellant. Even if it only works in vacuum/orbit/up there, think about the possibilities for orbital construction of stations and of much larger craft.

A continuous thrust vehicle could achieve some pretty serious speeds, too.

0
19

[–] 3081117 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Two possibilities come to mind for propulsion even at this low of speed:

  1. We could put it on every satellite we launch from here on out and never have to worry about deteriorating orbits. Every orbit could be adjustable indefinitely.

  2. We could create unmanned garbage scows to clean up the debris floating around our planet.

0
5

[–] jambo 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Don't warp drives need dilithium crystals?

0
2

[–] iamrage 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Even better, satellites that can be positioned to any location at any time without having to worry about using up all the fuel in it.

8
-5

5
7

[–] roznak 5 points 7 points (+12|-5) ago 

It is not a warp drive. You can't get faster than light.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

3
13

[–] Derecho 3 points 13 points (+16|-3) ago 

Actually, it might be.

There was a measurement in the last round of testing that showed particles of light exiting the resonant cavity having reached speeds in excess of C.

Meaning that there is a possibility that the EMDrive is somehow creating a warp bubble inside the resonant cavity.

So... not that the "EMDrive" would be a warp drive.

But it might quickly lead to them.

0
0

[–] revfelix 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Not... exactly. You can't go exactly the speed of light, but nothing in the math says you can't go faster. The problem of course, besides the ludicrous amounts of energy involved, is that it's hard to go above c without passing through it.

0
0

[–] organicgangbang 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Not necessarily. Despite failures in the past with experiments like OPERA, great resources are being invested into research on FTL particles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KATRIN

Since you seem to know better, maybe get in touch with them and convince them they are wasting their time?

0
4

[–] Braintrust [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

No, not a warp drive.

More a source of propulsion that has/uses no propellant.

That's a really, really, really big deal if true.

0
0

[–] blipBoop 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What I still don't understand is how this doesn't violate conservation of momentum. How can you thrust without something to push on?

0
2

[–] NoneOfTheAbove 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Wow you got bombarded with comments on this. As the author of one of those comments, I hop you know that at least most of us were lovingly correcting you. You're probably a swell cat.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] GiantEnemySeaLion 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Hope we don't get caught in some Alien Crossfire.

1
11

[–] The_Dude 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago  (edited ago)

"There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter." - Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Address to the Faculty"

0
5

[–] hwong 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

x-post from /v/unexplained:

So this thing can get going .99c speed of light.... That means Alpha Centauri is a mere five years away?!?!?!!!!?

To put it in perspective:

  • Magellen's voyage took 4 years...
  • Marko Polo took 8+ years.
  • Columbus' three trips took almost four years total.
  • The chinese Black Feet took 11 years to sail around the world.
  • cpt. cooks first expedition: 4 years
  • New Horizon to Pluto: 9 years

1
3

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Sure, you can get to Alpha Centauri in 5 years, and then come back in a further five. But from the perspective of the earth, you'll have taken tens if not hundreds of thousands of years to get there and back. Perhaps longer still.

Edit: Actually, I'm a bit confused now. Would it be possible to send someone away in a rocket and return them in ten years your time, but to them it would just be a few seconds in transit? How far could such a person go in that time, and what acceleration would they have to endure?

0
1

[–] jxfaith 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Can you imagine signing up to be on one of the first attempts at relativistic flight? It's very possible that new advances in drive technology lead to you arriving at a planet that is already colonized. How trippy would that be?

0
1

[–] Veni_Vidi_Vici 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Problem is that you will hit particles at .99c, which means your craft becomes massively radiated and will stop working at some point.

Space isn't a vacuum, so there will be some atoms along the way, never mind hitting something slightly bigger at .99c.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
10

[–] warpdesign 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

No. No the fucking didn't. They only confirmed that previous variables that weren't accounted that could have contributed to the result have been eliminated and they still get the same result. For something this ground breaking, if it turns out to be real, there's still a long ways to go before it is confirmed. It would turn everything we know about Physics on end, so they have to eliminate every possible variable that may be contributing a false positive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

0
6

[–] tame 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Also the video confuses 'fuel' (aka. 'energy source') with 'propellant'.

The EmDrive (if it works) doesn't use propellant. It still sure as hell requires energy to run. Saying you don't need fuel because you can use solar panels is like saying that a rocket doesn't use fuel because you can lob top-up tanks at it.

0
0

[–] TiagoTiago 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I guess it doesn't use fuel in the sense a sailboat doesn't use fuel.

0
8

[–] ieatrocks 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

this title is misleading as shit.

the nasa article is the same one that says THE EXACT OPPOSITE, that it almost certainly does not work

whats new is that one guy who claims it works still claims it works.... on a forum post.... without showing ANY of his data.

holy fuck people digitaltrends is using gawker and buzzfeed spam headlines and you all are buying it?

load more comments ▼ (31 remaining)