The moon in 4 hours...
-
Minor correction:
GuyThiebaut wrote:
that defy the current laws physics as far as we understand them
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
That is how the scientific method works. The reason the scientific method is so brilliant is that it constantly outdoes itself with better and more refined theories(theory means something very different in science than its common usage - Google it if you are unfamiliar with the scientific definition of the word 'theory'). It's why from the discovery of penicillin a whole range of other antibiotics were developed some of which have saved my life. It's how you are able to use a computer and post on the internet. Science makes no claims to absolute irrefutable truths outside of what it observes. So when it is said "as far as we understand them" this should be applauded because it shows that science is constantly in a state of new discovery.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive [^] The EmDrive [^] I think the fact that NASA are conducting serious tests is evidence that, at the very least, some serious scientists are convinced enough to explore it further.
Thanks. Looks interesting, I eagerly await peer reviewed papers in scientific journals showing this to be functional.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I'll believe it when I see the hardware actually leave low Earth orbit and go past the Moon in 4 hours, using no other propulsion system. (I'm making it easy for you; you don't have to take off from Earth or land on the Moon.)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Exactly! :laugh: On a side note, I would rather see it. And yesterday please!
All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
The Moon was reached by applying well-known engineering principles in a disciplined manner, not by wishing it so. Extraordinary claims such as the EM drive require extraordinary proof. While I would not claim that all physical laws have been discovered (The eminent English physicist Lord Kelvin did so at the end of the 19th century, just before Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were discovered), I am also hesitant to accept the discovery of a new phenomenon without extraordinary proof. Quite a few supposed discoveries of the last hundred years have turned out to be either errors (cold fusion, faster-than-light neutrinos) or deliberate frauds (all "psi" phenomena).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Actually people had dreamed about going to the moon for centuries, long before it was possible to do so. Even on the first manned landing there were a lot of questions about whether it was possible - the key thing is that they tried anyway. Proof is critical, but you don't get proof without trying.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Actually people had dreamed about going to the moon for centuries, long before it was possible to do so. Even on the first manned landing there were a lot of questions about whether it was possible - the key thing is that they tried anyway. Proof is critical, but you don't get proof without trying.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
A dream is very different from an engineering project. When NASA started Project Apollo, there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible. Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again. The big problem with Project Apollo was converting these theoretical requirements to hardware, which must work in a totally new environment.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Exactly! :laugh: On a side note, I would rather see it. And yesterday please!
All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Me too. If it works (a big if, at present), it would be the biggest advance in space exploration since the Chinese invented rockets.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours [^] Where can I buy a ticket? Alpha Centauri in 100 years? Well, probably won't make it there without some form of stasis/hibernation but I'd give it a go!
I would love this to be true. Sadly it does not look like it is: http://io9.com/no-german-scientists-have-not-confirmed-the-impossibl-1720573809[^] They are bouncing microwaves around in a sealed chamber. It does not matter what shape that chamber is the net effect is zero thrust, so I would be staggered if this does actually work.
-
A dream is very different from an engineering project. When NASA started Project Apollo, there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible. Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again. The big problem with Project Apollo was converting these theoretical requirements to hardware, which must work in a totally new environment.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible
..apart from the fact that it had never been done before. There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive. http://www.space.com/26593-apollo-11-moon-landing-scariest-moments.html[^] http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html[^]
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again.
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess. Like I said, it had never been done before, there was no template to follow. But the people then had an ambitious dream and gave it their best shot.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible
..apart from the fact that it had never been done before. There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive. http://www.space.com/26593-apollo-11-moon-landing-scariest-moments.html[^] http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html[^]
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again.
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess. Like I said, it had never been done before, there was no template to follow. But the people then had an ambitious dream and gave it their best shot.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive.
I do not minimize the dangers involved in reaching the Moon. My point is that the solutions to these dangers were a matter of engineering, not scientific research. No new scientific principles were discovered in the attempt to reach the Moon (but many new facts were).
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess.
Orbital mechanics was a well-known subject in the 1960s, and had been since Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity in the late 17th century.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours [^] Where can I buy a ticket? Alpha Centauri in 100 years? Well, probably won't make it there without some form of stasis/hibernation but I'd give it a go!
-
I would love this to be true. Sadly it does not look like it is: http://io9.com/no-german-scientists-have-not-confirmed-the-impossibl-1720573809[^] They are bouncing microwaves around in a sealed chamber. It does not matter what shape that chamber is the net effect is zero thrust, so I would be staggered if this does actually work.
Ah... but they forgot to dance naked around a unicorn in the starlight before conducting the test, which is why it did not work for them.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive.
I do not minimize the dangers involved in reaching the Moon. My point is that the solutions to these dangers were a matter of engineering, not scientific research. No new scientific principles were discovered in the attempt to reach the Moon (but many new facts were).
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess.
Orbital mechanics was a well-known subject in the 1960s, and had been since Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity in the late 17th century.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
And what led to the engineering? Did people just do it as a technical experiment? Of course not - it was done purely because men had dreamed of going to the moon for centuries. Damn, this kind of endless loop of circular nit-picking is exactly what I was talking about originally. Our ancestors (even our recent ones) just gone on with stuff, aimed high, tried to achieve the unobtainable. Some were successful, many weren't, but that's how we progressed. Our generation is a bit duff if I'm honest. Armchair experts providing an infinite amount of background chatter and negativity (thanks mostly to soshul meeja) on any and every subject. It really makes me feel like moving off to an isolated log cabin a thousand miles from anyone. What do we aspire to these days? Sod all, 'cos nothing's possible. Welcome to the 21st century, the Age of Mediocrity. :thumbsdown:
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Moon in 4 hours using microwaves? 1) What acceleration would that require and 2) Where would they get an extension cord that long?
1. The acceleration required is on the order of 1 Earth gravity. 2. You can find extension cords at your local hardware store. :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Moon in 4 hours using microwaves? 1) What acceleration would that require and 2) Where would they get an extension cord that long?
-
1. The acceleration required is on the order of 1 Earth gravity. 2. You can find extension cords at your local hardware store. :)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
The one thing that all these machines, that defy the current laws physics, appear to have in common is that: 1 - the machines no longer exist. 2 - the inventor has died or refuses to release the secret. 3 - the government has bought the patent and destroyed all evidence. When I see the science proving this then I will be convinced(independent blind tests at the very least with thorough statistical analysis) - until then I am deeply sceptical.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
You forgot that they always wanted a million dollars before they would reveal their workings. The "Dean Drive" comes to mind.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
I would love this to be true. Sadly it does not look like it is: http://io9.com/no-german-scientists-have-not-confirmed-the-impossibl-1720573809[^] They are bouncing microwaves around in a sealed chamber. It does not matter what shape that chamber is the net effect is zero thrust, so I would be staggered if this does actually work.
Did you miss the opening sentence "Two German researchers claim they have produced measurable amounts of thrust using a copy of NASA’s controversial EMDrive." Without impossible dreams, nothing amazing gets made. Even if this proves to be a dead end, surely it's worth the effort to figure it out? Who know what else may come from the research?
-
I'm with you - this is how big leaps forward are made. Why just dismiss it without looking deeper? Sometimes I think we're in probably the most unambitious, cynical phase mankind has ever seen. People seem to prefer bickering over nothing on Facebook than trying to do something nobody has done before. X| Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
People seem to prefer bickering over nothing on Facebook than trying to do something nobody has done before.
That's what Facebook is for. If you expect anything productive to come out of Facebook, then your expectations of Facebook are several orders of magnitude higher than they should be. The people in this world actually trying to accomplish something don't waste their time of Facebook.
-
Moon in 4 hours using microwaves? 1) What acceleration would that require and 2) Where would they get an extension cord that long?
I once calculated that if you accelerate halfway at one G, flip, and decelerate at one G, the moon is about three hours away. I've since seen an article saying that using that strategy, the moon is (as I calculated) three hours away; Mars is three days away (at opposition, I guess); and Pluto is three weeks away.
-
I once calculated that if you accelerate halfway at one G, flip, and decelerate at one G, the moon is about three hours away. I've since seen an article saying that using that strategy, the moon is (as I calculated) three hours away; Mars is three days away (at opposition, I guess); and Pluto is three weeks away.
Now work out the size of the fuel tank required for a chemical rocket. You're in for a nasty surprise...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill