The moon in 4 hours...
-
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
-
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
Agreed. In this case, I remember a few years ago, someone mentioned that they were able to reproduce the effect. I believe this is the essence of the German comments. A second set of scientists have found "thrust". I don't think this violates physics per se. He takes energy in the form of solar, and converts it to kinetic energy. Reminds me of Tesla being ridiculed that spinning a magnet would only produce opposing forces that would cancel each other out. The genius was preventing the cancellation, or capturing 4 phases. In this case, I can envision (hallucination on my end, because I have no idea how it works), that he found a way to KICK 2 legs back and forth, like a swimmer, producing some kind of eddy current in the ether, again, like a simmer. The good news is that he is sharing, and people appear to be getting similar results. My disappointment is that the size/force so far is MINUSCULE (based on the old reading). Combine with recent microwave power transmissions from earth, and you could PUSH it into space using grid electricity, and not have to have a power module! Once in space, it has less to overcome. exciting stuff!
-
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
Not a surprise at all - I'm well aware of the pathetically low Isp (dang - need real subscripts - I mean Specific Impulse) of chemical propellants. I'm always intrigued by reports of propulsion schemes with dramatically higher Isp - Project Orion (atomic bombs out the butt) and nuclear rockets using monatomic hydrogen as reaction mass come to mind.
-
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.
It's not a criticism of Facebook, my issue is with the lack of ambition and imagination in our generation. Where are the big movies that people will still be talking about and watching in 20 years time? Where are the iconic bands? Don't get me wrong, I like modern music and some films, but there's nothing to compare with some of the big bands and movies from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Have we really run out of big ideas? :confused:
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
The calculations take this into account. Once out of earth's atmosphere half of the journey would have the engines pointing away from the moon and half towards it - so in effect there would be a 1g acceleration throughout the whole journey, it's just that half of that journey would be using the acceleration to come to a stop.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
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
While being skeptical is fine... 1) The drive still exists. Multiple, independently built copies. 2) The inventor has released the secret. Two German labs, a Chinese lab, and NASA skunkworks have all independently built it. 3) As the above shows... Nope. No one's bought the patent, and the evidence hasn't been destroyed. Just people refuse to believe it. Everyone who's built the device is shocked to report it works; at least preliminary tests show thrust. They aren't fully ready to publish because they need to do more research, so yeah, it might be bunk, but it doesn't really look like a hoax. I want to see the device tested in orbit, but that's going to require a lot of money from people who believe themselves too smart to buy it.
-
While being skeptical is fine... 1) The drive still exists. Multiple, independently built copies. 2) The inventor has released the secret. Two German labs, a Chinese lab, and NASA skunkworks have all independently built it. 3) As the above shows... Nope. No one's bought the patent, and the evidence hasn't been destroyed. Just people refuse to believe it. Everyone who's built the device is shocked to report it works; at least preliminary tests show thrust. They aren't fully ready to publish because they need to do more research, so yeah, it might be bunk, but it doesn't really look like a hoax. I want to see the device tested in orbit, but that's going to require a lot of money from people who believe themselves too smart to buy it.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
Everyone who's built the device is shocked to report it works; at least preliminary tests show thrust. They aren't fully ready to publish because they need to do more research, so yeah, it might be bunk, but it doesn't really look like a hoax.
Let's see what the peer reviewed data shows. Remember when it was recently thought that a particle had gone faster than the speed of light, the researchers very carefully went over their data to discover what had actually happened.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
Just people refuse to believe it.
'believe' is not a word that is used in scientific studies, 'evidence' and 'proof' are words that are used.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
Everyone who's built the device is shocked to report it works; at least preliminary tests show thrust. They aren't fully ready to publish because they need to do more research, so yeah, it might be bunk, but it doesn't really look like a hoax.
Let's see what the peer reviewed data shows. Remember when it was recently thought that a particle had gone faster than the speed of light, the researchers very carefully went over their data to discover what had actually happened.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
Just people refuse to believe it.
'believe' is not a word that is used in scientific studies, 'evidence' and 'proof' are words that are used.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
'believe' is not a word that is used in scientific studies, 'evidence' and 'proof' are words that are used.
Right. I'm not talking about scientific studies not believing it. The scientific studies have provided evidence in the form of empirical measurements of thrust. It's random people like you and me who don't believe the evidence being presented. I argue for giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they're seeing thrust, they need to study it further, and to do that they need funding. People declaring it impossible and a hoax are essentially saying it's not worth their taxpayer money.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
'believe' is not a word that is used in scientific studies, 'evidence' and 'proof' are words that are used.
Right. I'm not talking about scientific studies not believing it. The scientific studies have provided evidence in the form of empirical measurements of thrust. It's random people like you and me who don't believe the evidence being presented. I argue for giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they're seeing thrust, they need to study it further, and to do that they need funding. People declaring it impossible and a hoax are essentially saying it's not worth their taxpayer money.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
It's random people like you and me who don't believe the evidence being presented.
What is a 'non-random' person? Also, I don't need to 'believe' evidence. All I am asking for is the evidence to be presented in the form of peer reviewed scientific journal articles. 'Belief' does not come into the scientific method.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
It's random people like you and me who don't believe the evidence being presented.
What is a 'non-random' person? Also, I don't need to 'believe' evidence. All I am asking for is the evidence to be presented in the form of peer reviewed scientific journal articles. 'Belief' does not come into the scientific method.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
What is a 'non-random' person?
A 'non-random' person would be a person who has actually had direct experience with the device, such as someone at Skunkworks, or Northwestern Polytechnical University, or... you get the idea. Build the em-drive yourself and you would no longer be a "random person".
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Also, I don't need to 'believe' evidence.
Sure you do! I can give you a picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon, but if you're a "Truther" you won't believe the evidence. Or the entire pile that goes along with it. Humans are quite capable of not believing evidence. All I ask is that when judging by the scientific method, you check your prejudices at the door. Don't declare it a hoax without doing the slightest bit of research, don't point out all the ways previous hoaxes worked in an attempt to discredit it even though none of them apply. Instead, say something like "The preliminary evidence is interesting. I look forward to its submission to a peer reviewed journal."