Absolutely astounding. Interesting question about whether this damages the quantum vacuum. The only tiny nit I had was that Ohio class SSBNs launch SLBMs, not ICBMs.
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!"
Quote from: teookie on 04/29/2015 07:23 pm... But wouldn't it be possible to use emDrives terrestrially as well? Think helicopters with no downdraft, levitating cars or trains. Heck, why not a emDrive SSTO vehicle? Are these concepts within the realm of possibility?Firstly, congrats on your first post! And to answer your question, it probably wouldn't be cost effective because of the amount of electricity you'd need to generate just to fight earth's gravity. The amount of thrust per kilowatt is extremely small. But for space, it'd be worth it not to have to use chemical propellants to move or make orbital corrections.
... But wouldn't it be possible to use emDrives terrestrially as well? Think helicopters with no downdraft, levitating cars or trains. Heck, why not a emDrive SSTO vehicle? Are these concepts within the realm of possibility?
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.
I know you didn't write it, and I know you're a chemical propulsion hugger (Shuttle, etc. ) but where would you stand in the above "color me...." scale?
Wouldn't you feel weird if this stuff does work out, and your website was instrumental in creating an "interest phase change" that finally led to adequate financing for these efforts? And someday people are flying all over the Solar System, and you're thinking "wow... I helped do this." Wouldn't that be weird?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/29/2015 11:08 pmAbsolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.Twitter is tough on some things, not so tough on others. I'm very skeptical still. One smell test which it continually fails: when people spend far more time talking about what it will mean if it's true, rather than focusing on whether it is true...bad smell. Especially on a topic that at the most optimistic telling requires accepting extensive revision of many scientific principles, and accepting what its proponents acknowledge are a whole raft of theories that do not have mainstream acceptance. Makes for great fiction, but very poor science, because it puts the spotlight front and center on what is to the researcher a conflict of interest, a source of impartiality which threatens the integrity of their work. Queue up the Feynman quote about not fooling yourself.It would not be the first bit of skanky science which NASA, or NASA researchers, have embraced. (Arsenic-based life forms, anyone?)I'll look forward to seeing results several orders of magnitude larger by the NASA team in a controlled environment. And to see what the physics academic community thinks about the various theories put forward by the teams.
I rather think you're falling victim to the same sort of emotionally-charged evaluation you're assigning to others, only in reverse.I don't work in the field, I'm a computer/network guy by trade, artist and dreamer by predisposition (yup), but I have to say, your insinuation that the greater volume in this discussion is of the 'what it will mean if it's true' sort is something I just can't get my head around.The thread that is the source material for this article is so science and data dense it boggles the mind. More, your assertion that the theory building 'requires accepting extensive revision of many scientific principles, and accepting what its proponents acknowledge are a whole raft of theories that do not have mainstream acceptance' seems a little off base too, as the theory I've been able to find on the underlying subjects are quite old, some quite central to quantum mechanics ('Heisenberg's uncertainty principle' comes to mind). And seriously, how is the science presented by these researches in any way informed or impacted by what NASA has paid other people to do? Why the strawman?Seriously, a bit of self-examination may be in order here. Just sayin'.Follow the data, not your heart.
It sounds like the EM field is not pushing against NOthing, but SOMEthing that actually exists within what we typically consider to be the empty vacuum of space.