The root problem is reactionless propulsion with greater than photon thrust is a free energy machine. The problem is not a thrust conversion process using inertia, electrical, nuclear or any from of energy. The limit is more thrust than a massless particle propellant while having the ability to just start moving, on its own, without touching or exuding anything. It's imbalanced momentum, a violation of Newton’s laws with no (known) exceptions.

IMO, wishful thinking in the same arena as the Albecurrie drive. The math might be impeccable but the physical universe doesn't care, it has hard limits.

This has been a 'trope' for true believers some time with no real progress.

2006 magical thinking

I cant say too much about it starting to move on it's own, but if it was pushed just a little that would start it going in some direction and that would mean there was an imbalance in anything moving forward vs anything moving backwards due to relativity. The difference would be so slight though, but as the guy in that vid (i watched part of it) says, it can be scaled up.
But if you can actually disprove it, then show the work. Would be interesting to go over.

I thought about something similar a long time ago although the mechanism was entirely different. In fact it has to do with electron orbits not a pulsing machine. But think about this for a minute. Say we have an object in an oblong orbit (like an oval let's say) where one of the small ends of the oval is in front in the travel so it leads the way, Now what happens to the object as it travels along the long side of the oval in the direction of travel and what happens to it as it traveles along the other long side of the oval path in the opposite direction of travel.
First, when it travels in the forward direction it would gain mass, but when it travels backward it would lose mass. Now if the object 'track' was also linked to a platform when the object moves forward it would push the mechanism forward, but when it moves backwards it would have less of a push in the opposite direction as it slid along the curve. The question then is does the speed increase or not.
The mass changes because the speed of the object in the forward direction is greater due to the initial movement.
My gut feeling on this though is that it would only keep it going at the same speed and not increase and this basically outlines an idea i had for the intrinsic mechanism of inertia. Of course it is hard to prove.
It is interesting though that once the mechanism starts to move, things change for something moving forward vs backward for anything riding on the mechanism. But the oval i described above now that i think about it is like a Wankle (rotary) Engine vs a regular Piston Engine that the video talks about. Why have an object be pushed forward and backward when we can just have it rotate right? If ti works at all we should see the same effect, and after all rotary motion is smoother than piston action.
Then we have the expansion of the universe. If it goes faster and faster then maybe we need to learn about the mechanism behind that in detail and scale it up or down as needed. That's entirely different though.

Just some thoughts

 

And I still say we are basing "space" physics on "near planet" physics. Since we have never made ANY experiment away from our planet, in deep space, we are only basing what is possible on what we see and experience "near planet".

 

And I still say we are basing "space" physics on "near planet" physics. Since we have never made ANY experiment away from our planet, in deep space, we are only basing what is possible on what we see and experience "near planet".

I bet that lots of interesting experiments could be made in low orbit, or at the ISS ... no need to go to deep space.

 

I bet that lots of interesting experiments could be made in low orbit, or at the ISS ... no need to go to deep space.

I disagree, unless your doing experiments about low orbit. To go into deep space I don't think we can know how things will work.

 

I disagree, unless your doing experiments about low orbit. To go into deep space I don't think we can know how things will work.

You might have a point ... maybe things don't work exactly the same in deep space as they do in orbit ... perhaps a mission to a LaGrange point would be enough?

 

One scientist found the speed of light was different in other parts of the universe. We'd have to look that up though dont remember much about it.

 

One scientist found the speed of light was different in other parts of the universe. We'd have to look that up though dont remember much about it.

Yeah ... I'd definitely like to see the report you're talking about ... no offense, but I find that sort of claim highly dubious

 

I cant say too much about it starting to move on it's own, but if it was pushed just a little that would start it going in some direction and that would mean there was an imbalance in anything moving forward vs anything moving backwards due to relativity. The difference would be so slight though, but as the guy in that vid (i watched part of it) says, it can be scaled up.
But if you can actually disprove it, then show the work. Would be interesting to go over.

I'm not going to waste both of our times trying to prove a negative on something so obviously impossible with accepted physics. The video was to show how nothing has changed since 2006. If it worked (it doesn't), a scaled up rocket the size of a Saturn V could destroy a planet with the KE gained from a acceleration loop the size of our solar system.

 

Yeah ... I'd definitely like to see the report you're talking about ... no offense, but I find that sort of claim highly dubious

Highly dubious is an understatement if it's about the Cosmic speed limit. Now the actual speed of photons in real space does change because of matter interactions (no perfect vacuum) but the Cosmic speed limit remains invariant.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=10510

 

Hi,

Yeah you guys are so deep in dead end beliefs that you'll never see anything different than what you think is true now and if history tells us anything it tells us that nothing is constant but is always in a state of change. We've seen this happen over and over and over again in history. If we ignore that, then yes, everything is constant. Physics is like a revolving door, where everything depends on everything else, but change one thing and you can certainly change something else to get a workable solution again.
Now those that are not so old fashioned will have something else to say.
A quick search turns up some alternate views:
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

Isnt that a nice title

 

Hi,

Yeah you guys are so deep in dead end beliefs that you'll never see anything different than what you think is true now and if history tells us anything it tells us that nothing is constant but is always in a state of change. We've seen this happen over and over and over again in history. If we ignore that, then yes, everything is constant. Physics is like a revolving door, where everything depends on everything else, but change one thing and you can certainly change something else to get a workable solution again.
Now those that are not so old fashioned will have something else to say.
A quick search turns up some alternate views:
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

Isnt that a nice title

From that article:

Unfortunately, it won't necessarily mean we can travel faster than light, because the effects of physics theories such as relativity are a consequence of light's velocity.

That was my main concern, and it's been clarified. So yes, maybe the speed of light can vary (it does, depending of the medium), but it's both a theoretical and verifiable fact that it can't go faster than it goes in a vacuum. Now, if that vacuum is subject to changes, as that article implies, it would be interesting to thoroughly study the possibilities.

 

Hi,

Yeah you guys are so deep in dead end beliefs that you'll never see anything different than what you think is true now and if history tells us anything it tells us that nothing is constant but is always in a state of change. We've seen this happen over and over and over again in history. If we ignore that, then yes, everything is constant. Physics is like a revolving door, where everything depends on everything else, but change one thing and you can certainly change something else to get a workable solution again.
Now those that are not so old fashioned will have something else to say.
A quick search turns up some alternate views:
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

Isnt that a nice title

Sorry, but that's unscientific BS and an excuse for unscientific devices like the EMdrive and this exotic propulsion poppycock wasting valuable resources.
Physics builds on existing models, each in its scale of applicability. Change means finding a experimental data compatible theory that expands the scale of possible models. This idea that anything is possible is unscientific.

This was not and is not addressed to you specifically.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/ohms-law-and-hominid-evolution.160385/page-4#post-1400955

No, that would be a stupid way to think and is a cop-out for not being selective about what's fiction and fact. A limitation of the impossible is not a limit on all that is possible like cars, jets, space-craft and electronic telecommunications. To buddy up the two is being childish and lazy IMO.
Yes, there are things we will be no further than we are now like perpetual motion machines, free energy and 99% of the fringe stuff on the internet. We don't really invent the law of physics, we discover them because they already exist and operate the universe. Yes, there is more to be discovered but it MUST be compatible with what we currently see and know from experimental evidence and observation. Any theory of anti-gravity must be compatible with the observable reality of mass, acceleration, General and Special Relativity to name a few. Anti-gravity seems to violate the law of conservation of energy and momentum, that's also a big no-no on the possible scale. Gravity isn't something that happens inside space and time. It is something that happens to deform space and time itself. (General Relativity.) It would require negative (anti) space and negative (anti) time as well as negative mass to have a consistent anti-gravity theory.
Even if it did work to counter gravity it might not be very useful for space flight because you still have mass, KE and PE propulsion requirements even if gravity was zero.

On the speed of light.
Your title is exactly what I said in my reply about the speed of light. Variability in different media has absolutely no relevance to the subject of reactionless propulsion.

 

Ok then if you guys want to more about this you'll have to do your won research.
Bye.

 

How would one hold one mass in place (in space) and get any "thrust " by oscillating the other mass? As I said earlier its no different to having a spring between the masses and expecting the mass to be thrust in one direction by rapidly expanding and contracting the spring. Cos thats all the peizo crystals are doing. And there is still no accounting for the mass of the power supply to drive this stuff, that has to be attached some how or are they going to use a long extension lead?
Just had another good read of this "drive". They state that the "driven " mass becomes lighter when "pushed" and heavyer when "pulled". How can this be? If the acceleration is at relativistic speed then surely the apparent mass increases in both directions. It aint going nowhere. Makes an interesting buzzer though!

 

It's really good to know we have experts on this site that obviously know more than the trained physicists doing the experiments.

 

How would one hold one mass in place (in space) and get any "thrust " by oscillating the other mass? As I said earlier its no different to having a spring between the masses and expecting the mass to be thrust in one direction by rapidly expanding and contracting the spring. Cos thats all the peizo crystals are doing. And there is still no accounting for the mass of the power supply to drive this stuff, that has to be attached some how or are they going to use a long extension lead?
Just had another good read of this "drive". They state that the "driven " mass becomes lighter when "pushed" and heavyer when "pulled". How can this be? If the acceleration is at relativistic speed then surely the apparent mass increases in both directions. It aint going nowhere. Makes an interesting buzzer though!

Slower in one direction means less mass in that direction. Faster means more mass.
We could do the math.
We could create an electrical equivalent circuit.

 

It's really good to know we have experts on this site that obviously know more than the trained physicists doing the experiments.

The trained physicists on 'real' physics sites have banned discussion of these sorts of devices because they treat the subject of science and experiments seriously.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/nasas-em-drive.884753/post-5625535

 

The trained physicists on 'real' physics sites have banned discussion of these sorts of devices because they treat the subject of science and experiments seriously.

As well they should.

 

A general rule to keep in mind.. just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean there is an exception buried in it that means you get to violate the sometimes frustrating laws of physics.

This drive is crackpot pseudoscience of the most shoddy unfalsifiable kind. (also known as: untestability)
You need to disprove.
CoM
CoE
Relative frames of reference (relativity itself)

It's like claiming a taco wrapped in tin foil is a propellantless thruster when you eat it. It's something so fundamentally unbelievable even most science fiction authors avoid it (using warps or space bending instead) when they get to pick one impossible thing for a story.

Let's talk about the Boltzmann brain problem instead. (only kidding)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526171-100-spooks-in-space/

Spooks in space

 

It's really good to know we have experts on this site that obviously know more than the trained physicists doing the experiments.

You are forgetting he was also a spy.