Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/02/2014 09:15 pmReal advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 08/02/2014 10:13 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/02/2014 09:15 pmReal advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.That point seems to have escaped the OP.
They are made by not having any preconceived ideas about applications.
Having a goal of making a reactionless rocket drive and then looking for physics to make it work is backwards. That's not how discoveries in physics are made. They are made by not having any preconceived ideas about applications.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/02/2014 11:05 pmHaving a goal of making a reactionless rocket drive and then looking for physics to make it work is backwards. That's not how discoveries in physics are made. They are made by not having any preconceived ideas about applications.Strikethru mine.Do you see how silly this sounds?
Quote from: Optimistic Brian on 08/02/2014 05:53 amThis is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/02/2014 07:49 amQuote from: Optimistic Brian on 08/02/2014 05:53 amThis is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.Wow that's a perfect way to debunk this. I was looking for something short and sweet like this.
Quote from: mlindner on 08/03/2014 02:09 amQuote from: KelvinZero on 08/02/2014 07:49 amQuote from: Optimistic Brian on 08/02/2014 05:53 amThis is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.Wow that's a perfect way to debunk this. I was looking for something short and sweet like this.yesh. you wouldn't want to try to find out where the unexpected energy comes from or something all scientific like. here is the issue with that. random debunking is bunkum. whatever the root cause of a phenomenon whether valid or not you just say it's swamp gas. it does not really explain what happened. it's every bit as much bunk as claiming it's Klaatu.
I have not seen 'free energy' mentioned for quite a few posts now.
..General explanation here...
I was mainly looking for a short description of a major issue with the experiment that I can feed to people to prompt them to engage their brains for a minute rather than shoveling the bull**** down their throats without thinking. After that some discussion can be sparked to realize the issues at hand.
The EmDrive and White's theories are the opposite -- they put the theory first and then go looking for evidence afterwards. In both cases, the theories claim to be consequences of existing theories in physics, but reputable physicists say that in fact they come from misunderstandings of current theories.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/02/2014 07:49 am(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.How is this any different from an ion thruster?If you do one burn to bring a satellite up to 10 m/s, and then another with the same energy that brings it to 20 m/s, you have the same phenomenon. In the second burn, you get more kinetic energy than in the first burn, even though your thruster expended the same amount of energy.
What this thesis ignores is that none of these theories extend how their devices would function as velocity increases.