NASA Confirms The Plausibility of Reactionless Drives??!!

Ace of Spades HQ ^ | 8-1-2014 | Ace

[FredZarguna]

Nonsense.

The New York Times isn't The Physical Review. Physicists knew [and have known since Newton] that the reaction isn't against the air, but against the walls of the combustion chamber; if it were otherwise, the thrust developed would diminish the instant the rocket left the ground, since your hypothetical [and nonsensical] "push" is would initially be against the ground, which is much more resistive than air.

[SunkenCiv]

The video I’m listening to in another tab had a soundtrack resembling those YT vids purporting to reveal all about some top secret (and often imaginary) project. He should rethink that.

http://cannae.com/about

Here’s Shawyer’s site:

http://www.emdrive.com/

and a paper of his:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

[chaosagent]

You said this in your first post:

“NOBODY thought Goddard’s ideas were kooky in the least.”

I wasn’t talking about physicists. I was talking about the general public, you know, readers of the New York Times, not The Physical Review.

In 1920 the NY Times lampooned Goddard’s ideas. They didn’t officially retract them until the moon landing in 1969. And that was 24 years after Goddard died.

See here:

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/new-york-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space

[FredZarguna]

My original comment was about silly lay people, not engineers or hard-discipline scientists. Too many people on FR have taken anti-science positions [like, ironically, the New York Times.] It's unlikely that Goddard cared one bit about the popular press which has eternally, invariably been populated by innumerate morons and scientific illiterates.

[Boogieman]

“Someone needs to explain how you change the wavelength of a photon without some non-linear mechanism. Are we really talking about somehow filtering the AVERAGE wavelength of a broadband energy source as a function of the direction of travel in the cavity?”

They say it’s just the geometry of the conical resonating chamber thats force the microwaves to change wavelength, which then alters the group velocity of the waves in a relativistic effect.

[Boogieman]

“...each wave would bounce towards the other emitter and get cancelled... but the bounce point would receive the energy.”

I don’t know if this would work. You would have to attune the waves so that they would cancel each other out through destructive interference. If you did that, I think they would cancel out at the reflection point, with no net effect.

You might be able to time it to work though. You would have to turn on only one emitter, then, after that emission hit the front wall, turn on the other emitter to cancel it after the bounce.

[lafroste]

Your knowledge is greater than mine. I am interested in learning higher mathematics and physics. Can you recommend some good resources? I had a brief flirtation with Lorentz transformations, but what I did know I have forgotten. Similarly, I am interested in studying more advanced physics than what I know now.

Interestingly, I developed a theory to allow anti-gravity devices, a way to actually build such a device. I took it to a graduate level physics lecture (they were discussing Eigenvectors). After the class I approached the professor and presented my theory. He was unable to punch any holes in it and after about 40 minutes he decided that I had “discovered” relativity but from a different approach. I want to know if my theory is correct or not, but I need more education to help in that endeavor.