Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nasa Finally Publishes Controversial Fuel Free 'impossible Drive' Paper - But Still Can't Explain How It Works

NASA science breaking EmDrive

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#18 Trevor

Trevor

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 03:46 AM

I don't see their problem, they're quite used to working with fictionalised reality and hokum, why should this particular problem cause them pause for thought?

 

Can't answer? No problem, sling some numbers across the blackboard and hope nobody looks too close.

 

For instance, make up some ludicrous suggestion that gravity waves work differently on microwave reflective surfaces, and manifest as an inverted 'information' stream on which a craft can be made to 'surf'.

 

I've kept the language simple deliberately, but part of the performance requires grammar skills to tax part of the audience, math skills to perplex the ego and experience of others - etc etc.

 

Just how quickly do you suppose the first real challenge will come? NASA illustrates this mindset perfectly, they are terrified of early challenges to their position, so take NO position at all, but how long does it take before 'someone' suggests they're just too stupid to understand the concept within which the reality lies.

 

Einstein was a past master of such intellectual acrobatics. He used the female primal attraction for intellect, and its perceived genetic advantages to lure the hard to get - with some success. How much less risky to the ego was one of his numeric puzzles, tossed out to linger, unchallenged - due to fear of being made to look a fool.

 

Black holes worked didn't they?


Edited by Trevor, 06 February 2018 - 03:47 AM.


#19 Trevor

Trevor

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 04:07 AM

I think this story will turn out the same way those “faster than light” neutrinos. As you may recall, in that case the fiber optic cable carrying the timing signals was poorly connected, and the reflection in the signal caused a 73 nanosecond delay in the timing. In other words, the timing started 73 nanoseconds after the neutrinos started their journey from CERN with the improbable result they were arriving in Italy before they left Switzerland!

 

Now, one would think the scientists involved would instantly know their test setup was bungled, but instead they announced they found evidence that physics as we know it is fatally flawed. What a howler that was!

 

This EmDrive sounds similar. Without any propellant leaving the closed chamber, conservation of energy says no thrust force can result from em waves bouncing around inside the chamber. So, the scientists have proposed that “the tapered RF test article pushes off of quantum vacuum fluctuations, and the thruster generates a volumetric body force and moves in one direction while a wake is established in the quantum vacuum that moves in the other direction”.

 

I wonder how long they spent thinking that one up. Their time may well have been better spent looking for a loose cable!

 

CERN is a poor reference for such comparisons - they've repeated the mistake they made when powering up the LHC without first checking the connections with a meter, relying on the 'electricians' knowing what they were doing - as well as the damage which could result from fractional differences in resistance. 

 

First, define a pass/fail measurement, then find or design an apparatus capable of measuring these values - not rely on Joe the Electrician and his AVO 8!



#20 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1761 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 03:58 PM

I don't see their problem, they're quite used to working with fictionalised reality and hokum, why should this particular problem cause them pause for thought?

 

Can't answer? No problem, sling some numbers across the blackboard and hope nobody looks too close.

 

For instance, make up some ludicrous suggestion that gravity waves work differently on microwave reflective surfaces, and manifest as an inverted 'information' stream on which a craft can be made to 'surf'.

 

I've kept the language simple deliberately, but part of the performance requires grammar skills to tax part of the audience, math skills to perplex the ego and experience of others - etc etc.

 

Just how quickly do you suppose the first real challenge will come? NASA illustrates this mindset perfectly, they are terrified of early challenges to their position, so take NO position at all, but how long does it take before 'someone' suggests they're just too stupid to understand the concept within which the reality lies.

 

Einstein was a past master of such intellectual acrobatics. He used the female primal attraction for intellect, and its perceived genetic advantages to lure the hard to get - with some success. How much less risky to the ego was one of his numeric puzzles, tossed out to linger, unchallenged - due to fear of being made to look a fool.

 

Black holes worked didn't they?

What is the purpose of this apparently directionless rant? Do you hate scientists or something? 



#21 Trevor

Trevor

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 05:30 AM

What is the purpose of this apparently directionless rant? Do you hate scientists or something? 

 

I don't know how you extrapolate hate from that reply, I hate nobody and consider us all scientists on some level.

 

As Feynman pointed out, step 1 is to 'guess', but people are too frightened or shy to guess publicly. This may stifle any potential constructive exchange. 



#22 Vmedvil

Vmedvil

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 06:47 AM

Ya, Trevor you must assume they didn't think about all the things you posted, they did, but that EM Drive does not work. How you have painted science is wildly inaccurate. These equations are to explain the exact way the events of nature are carried out. The key of the equation is the explain that element of nature exactly and not to confuse, as the Universe seems to use math to carry out these transactions. It is no trick just too complex for most people to understand the exact way the universe works nothing about EGO just getting the exact solution has its own rewards to truly understand the methods which the Universe uses to do an action under a situation.

 

c8dfd36a87354e5c171266bc4248914a--cause-

 

 

You don't have to believe that keep the paranoid belief that they did it as a manipulation technique that is fine with me. I know the way the Universe works and despite that sometimes I hate that it works that way, I would rather know the truth that doesn't fit my viewpoints then a lie that does. The Universe doesn't care what you think, Einstein  was correct in how it worked that is all that matters in the eyes of science. TRUE OR FALSE model of the Universe, nothing else matters to scientists does it accurately describe the situations that happen.

 

einstein-finger.jpg

 

I'll put it this way if Adolf Hitler made a correct model of the universe despite his moral imperfections it would have been part of science if it was correct!

 

 

adolf-hitler%5B1%5D.jpg

 

 

If you reply to this with more your paranoid and arrogant bullshit, I will just laugh at the sheer stupidity of your rants like I have been for days.....

 

if you still don't believe what I have said..... Read this ----> https://www.bestpsyc...nts-in-history/


Edited by Vmedvil, 08 February 2018 - 07:45 AM.


#23 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1761 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:32 AM

I don't know how you extrapolate hate from that reply, I hate nobody and consider us all scientists on some level.

 

As Feynman pointed out, step 1 is to 'guess', but people are too frightened or shy to guess publicly. This may stifle any potential constructive exchange. 

Well you certainly seem to be trying to disparage someone, or something, with your talk of people who are used to "fictionalised reality and hokum", NASA being "too stupid" to understand - and then finishing off with some irrelevant, but uncomplimentary, remarks about Einstein's sex life.

 

If you have a scientific point to make, it would help if you could make it, clearly and concisely, so that readers can respond.   



#24 Trevor

Trevor

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:42 PM

Well you certainly seem to be trying to disparage someone, or something, with your talk of people who are used to "fictionalised reality and hokum", NASA being "too stupid" to understand - and then finishing off with some irrelevant, but uncomplimentary, remarks about Einstein's sex life.

 

If you have a scientific point to make, it would help if you could make it, clearly and concisely, so that readers can respond.   

 

I guess you don't get out much, but..................





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: NASA, science, breaking, EmDrive