Chinese building Anti Gravity Drive (Emdrive)

[aardvark]

BS

 

[titchard]

Im amazed this threads gone this far, teki finds some crap and posts with lots of maths and figures (making it therefore correct) and he just babbles inanely for hours.

Do you even understand the maths and physics you posted in the first post? Just because you post a load of numbers doesn't mean it's right.

Rich

 

[muon]

The British government could tell me 2+2 isn't 4. I wouldn't believe them.

Well you would have to be pretty stupid to believe them. That's a pretty awful example to choose...

I think its a good example since conservation of momentum is a mathematical identity in all theories, and this highlights how absurd it is in reality.

What the OP proposes is almost the same as saying 2 + 2 =! 4.

 

[Inquisitor]

That's the reply he gave to that paper.

That reply isn't actually saying anything useful or meaningful, much less responding to the specific points raised by Costella.

He claims that momentum is conserved because when a moving photon hits the cone its momentum is transferred to the cone, and the engine starts moving. What he's conveniently ignoring is that the engine must have produced the photon beforehand, and in doing so lost momentum to it. So all that's happening is that the engine produces a photon and starts moving backwards, then re-absorbs it and stops moving backwards.

Let me reiterate: a closed system cannot gain or lose momentum. The 'paper' he's produced provides no evidence to the contrary, and until he can provide some, and it is independently peer-reviewed, I won't believe his claims

All of the physics in this "breakthrough" is completely understood by the scientific community. The result that has supposedly been produced can only be due to miscalculation or deception.

 

[Radiation]

I always find it annoying how science disregards anything that goes against their collective view, if something works then it works, its up to them to explain how the effect works not deny it without looking, science sometimes seems to do the opposite of what it claims in cases like this, for example they say energy cant be created or destroyed yet they believe the big bang happened, well however it all got here, if energy really can't be created or destroyed then one must conclude something has existed one way or another by that fact, big bangs could happen as well but something has to of always existed or they have to be open to the possibility energy can pop into existence like those virtual particles.

Anyway getting a bit off topic here, i don see why this drive can't work and if its showing evidence of creating thrust then they have to accept it and then worry about how, not about it hurting their 'laws'.

 

[muon]

Its showing thrust. A hovercraft has thrust?

Video proves nothing.

And if it can't be explained, that is exactly what scientists do. Many phenomena in science are attempted to be explained either through better understanding on how it relates to current theories, or create new theories themselves. That is precisely how science develops.

This device seems shady because in all this time he hasn't been able to convince anyone that it isn't explained by current theories. Why are demonstrations always on brief clips. Why not make a proper video? Why not walk onto a university campus and put it to physics students to show this isn't a closed system creating thrust?

 

[Radiation]

It sounds like it has been shown off from what teki posted?

 

[Firestar_3x]

An electromagnetic drive would simply alter the effect of gravity much the same to me getting in a helicopter taking to the skys and claiming i've turned gravity off.

Its a manipulation of the force not turning it off (so to speak)

 

[Inquisitor]

Anyway getting a bit off topic here, i don see why this drive can't work...

It's not that it can't; it's more that every shred of evidence ever observed contradicts his claims, which makes it rather unlikely that it does work.

...and if its showing evidence of creating thrust...

All I've seen so far is a video of some apparatus rotating, taken from a dodgy angle. This does not constitute evidence.

 

[Andy90]

2nd picture down. Nice case mod. Does it have a removable motherboard tray, since I cannot see the motherboard fitted. What colour are you going to spray it

 

[Radiation]

It's not that it can't; it's more that every shred of evidence ever observed contradicts his claims, which makes it rather unlikely that it does work.

All I've seen so far is a video of some apparatus rotating, taken from a dodgy angle. This does not constitute evidence.

All i've seen of the moon landings are some dodgy old video footage, would you also conclude they're not good enough as evidence? If you want to go down this path it can be argued you can't believe anything you see on video.

 

[Tefal]

All i've seen of the moon landings are some dodgy old video footage, would you also conclude they're not good enough as evidence?.

well that and laser refelctors which they left behind, and which are used to measure the distance of the moon regularly.

 

[Radiation]

well that and laser refelctors which they left behind, and which are used to measure the distance of the moon regularly.

Has nothing to do with my point but if i wanted to i could argue they were put there like they did with the mars rovers, so no astronauts needed.

 

[Inquisitor]

All i've seen of the moon landings are some dodgy old video footage, would you also conclude they're not good enough as evidence? If you want to go down this path it can be argued you can't believe anything you see on video.

The notion that we landed on the moon isn't contradicted by basic scientific principles that have been known for well over a century and which underpin our very understanding of the universe, though

 

[Radiation]

You suggested the video was not evidence and i made a comparison to something many may have found impossible before the moon landing and those even today who disbelive, no matter how foolish that is, you can't presume the video is fake based on your understanding or anyone elses.

It doesn't matter how much something contradicts the collective understanding, the point is if something is observed then it has to be accepted and studied, it doesn't matter how many scientists disbelieve, they're not doing their job denying it are they?

 

[Pottsey]

Radiatio said "You suggested the video was not evidence and i made a comparison to something many may have found impossible before the moon landing and those even today who disbelive, no matter how foolish that is, you can't presume the video is fake based on your understanding or anyone elses."
With the standard of CGI today and the amount of fake content around its wise to assume anything that's impossible is fake when the only evidence provided is via video. Video by its self is not enough to prove something is real anymore.

If the moon landing hadn't happened until today and the only evidence given was that low quality video then the video wouldn't be enough evidence to prove it's real.

Video is evidence, but video by itself it not evidence enough to prove something's real.

 

[Jotun]

Sorry for forthcoming wall of text :

Read it again. Specifically this bit:

The problem wasn't in transferring some power, but in getting enough power to do anything useful.

Inductive coupling isn't a new thing, but transfering enough power to be useful was the challenge. One person was quote saying he didn't think it would be possible to transfer that much power. It's not really relevant to this thread though as your example was refining something that was already known to work...

 

[w11tho]

I always find it annoying how science disregards anything that goes against their collective view...

That, and the rest of the post, is more than a little silly. I'll just reiterate my earlier sentiments (particularly the second paragraph):

In no way, shape, or form does his "paper" prove that momentum is conserved. He's done nothing more than bodge a force diagram, intelligible to high school students. There is no truth whatsoever in his work, and this will have been explained to him in great deal by many people. Cranks rarely consider this a reason to stop peddling their rubbish.

People, couldn't we have just the tiniest bit more faith in our scientific community? There are physicists and engineers out there with unimaginable intellect, who would love to discover something that turned our laws of physics on their head. The notion of the scientific community resisting change, or actively refusing to consider new, alternative theories is complete rubbish. Everyone wants to discover the next big thing, or at least have some part in its development.

So if someone has had an idea/invention/theory that could shake the foundations of physics, which then gets immediately and unilaterally shot down by the scientific community with the use of high school physics, then it's more than likely that the idea/invention/theory is utterly, utterly wrong.

 

[Inquisitor]

You suggested the video was not evidence and i made a comparison to something many may have found impossible before the moon landing and those even today who disbelive, no matter how foolish that is, you can't presume the video is fake based on your understanding or anyone elses.

Again, I didn't see any direct evidence of his claims in that video. All I saw was some rotating apparatus. Normally I'd have no reason to believe the video is fake, but in this case I do because it contradicts the very foundations of physics. Is that unreasonable?

Of course, it's not impossible that what Shawyer's claiming is true*, but I want to see some pretty solid evidence (i.e. more than a badly made video that doesn't really reveal what's going on) before believing his claims.

*His explanation, however, is certifiably false.

It doesn't matter how much something contradicts the collective understanding, the point is if something is observed then it has to be accepted and studied, it doesn't matter how many scientists disbelieve, they're not doing their job denying it are they?

You're absolutely right. The thing is that in this case, it hasn't been directly observed by the scientific community (and I'd wager that this is the case because if it were, it would immediately be exposed as a con).

Have another read of that rebuttal by Costella: it's absolutely correct (and the "response" Teki posted is rubbish and doesn't even make any attempt to respond to the points made by Costella).

 

[arknor]

Call me racist, but the nation that I expect will first crack anti-gravity, China doesn't spring to mind.

;D

you realise china isnt a poor country?

China has bought more than $1 trillion of American debt, but as the global downturn has intensified, Beijing is starting to keep more of its money at home, a move that could have painful effects for American borrowers.

they arent a backwords country full of rice farmers these days
they are spending money on space exploration only 2bil compared to nasas 17 bil for 2008 i believe but a lot of people fear china will surpass america in space exploration within the next 10 years