The the Standard Model still works like a gem, yet some stories lay out there for young scientist to break our normal way of thinking, how will they mold it to their way of understanding. Hopefully, might achieve more than we could imagine, I was stuck on the ground as a child, until Apollo, but now mankind is reaching the stars, our only limit is our current understanding.

kv

 

In the educational context, it's not. I see it as a missed chance to show the public how science is supposed to work.

I don't see it that way. Science was misused as a background for hustlers promoting the impossible. Most of the hard physics science forums banned discussion of the Emdrive because its a provable perpetual motion machine driven by non-scientific theories of free energy. A simple analyse of the input/output energy ratio tells you that without one experiment to prove it. It's a damnation of the gullibility and click-bait reporting of pop science of a high order. Time and money was wasted investigating a copper can that claimed to fly if it was a special shape and filled with RF energy with no theoretical explanation for how such an engine might work. It's such a nutty idea that even most science fiction writers avoid it.

In my case rational engineers get frustrated at gibbering stupidity wearing rational clothing like a mask, and like to vent when the public is being duped by pop-science media that should know better.

 

The the Standard Model still works like a gem, yet some stories lay out there for young scientist to break our normal way of thinking, how will they mold it to their way of understanding. Hopefully, might achieve more than we could imagine, I was stuck on the ground as a child, until Apollo, but now mankind is reaching the stars, our only limit is our current understanding.

kv

The limit is what's possible in this physical universe. As our understanding of the universe increases it only reinforces those limits to higher precision in a general context and in particular allows us to dismiss ridiculous claims like the Emdrive with ease.

 

1. Do you believe that a planet's orbit is elliptical?

2. Do you believe in singularities and black holes? Is there a density limit like a velocity limit?

3. Do you believe in the standard quantum model and the "nuclear strong force"? Is there really probability and randomness in nature?

4. Do you believe in space-time? Was space created with matter? How quaint.

5. Do you believe that the direction and speed of a marble can be compared to the direction and speed of light? A marble can only be accelerated.......light can only be decelerated.

6. Do you believe in dark matter and virtual particles? Existence comes from the randomness of quantum foam. A particle can be created from light.

These are the true crackpot theories. 100 years of infantile intellect. Nature has no need to hide from this "secular science". Just another false religion. She is use to it.

The elliptical planetary orbits is the greatest misconception of them all. This is because it has been observed and measured for hundreds of years. And much other science is based on the methods of observations and measurements. All gravitational theories must agree and explain these elliptical orbital trajectories.

But when we see the wake of a planetary orbit(a natural orbit, not a manmade one)...........we see a spiral or helical trajectory perpendicular to the orbital path. A perpendicular rotation to the main rotation.......TWO perpendicular rotations making one orbital rotation. This is NOT in reference to the planet's axial rotation. That is a third rotation.

This helical trajectory allows a balance and bandwidth of velocity and momentum......and distance. It also gives the planets an apparent axial or planetary spin, tilt. This tilt actually oscillates plus and minus and is dependent on the helix's diameter. The helical rotation gives us our seasons. It varies the distance AND angle(tilt) to the sun.

These helical trajectories have been observed and measured for years....with planetary ring material and satellite moons going thru dust fields from eruptions.

But you will not here much about it. The most important discovery in modern science. Not a peep. It's too embarrassing. They will not study it further. It should be on every front page. One would think real science would want to study a non-elliptical orbit in great detail. Where is the curiosity and the gravitational reckoning? Let's not talk about it.

Theories 2 thru 6 are even more sacred. If they did find some truth......they would not tell it. It would be the downfall of a great religion. The deceit of math.

We have crackpots and organized crackpots(science). Take your pick. No difference.

Is there anything about science........that you do NOT believe? Are you curious?......or are you faithful?

 

...
We have crackpots and organized crackpots(science). Take your pick. No difference.

Is there anything about science........that you do NOT believe? Are you curious?......or are you faithful?

There is a third choice. Not to believe in or be a crackpot with a crackpot understanding of physics..

 

There is a third choice. Not to believe in or be a crackpot with a crackpot understanding of physics..

Nsa... I remember now that the EM guy never claimed that his device produced a constant force ...

I know that my observation is moot anyways, since the thing has already been proved to be a fraud by people I trust. But that was one of the reasons why it drew my attention in the first place...

I'm going to do some looking anyway and be back with a reference to what I've said.

 

Anyone with any curiosity of motion, mechanics, or physics should be overwhelmed with these trajectories.

These are not anomalies.....a departure from the norm. They were just un-seen and un-recognized.

It's a crack in the veil. An un-recognized crack. To slough it off is a science politic.

With Earth's helical trajectory in mind(a moving reference........normalized to a centerline equal distant and equal angle from sun).......we should heavily radar the system for a few decades and plot the true trajectories of the system. Three D movement. Not seen from afar.

A real experiment. Disprove the anomalies.

By the way......when I say helical orbits......I'm not referring to the internet or youtube helical orbits.......That has nothing to do with what I am referring to.

However.....the youtube helix orbit does affect baseline length for parallax measurements. We need the sun's true velocity for that length.

 

Nsa... I remember now that the EM guy never claimed that his device produced a constant force ...

I know that my observation is moot anyways, since the thing has already been proved to be a fraud by people I trust. But that was one of the reasons why it drew my attention in the first place...

I'm going to do some looking anyway and be back with a reference to what I've said.

My understanding of the timeline is some BS about it being simply "propellantless" rather than truly "reactionless." What's important is that acceleration is constant, and rocket mass does not change for X thrust above some level higher than a photon rocket(A Photon rocket is not propellant-less. The exiting Photon momentum is the propellant) so there is no difference in effect. Then the question becomes. Why wouldn't it be a constant thrust if the source energy was EM waves (converting electrical energy directly into thrust) pushing on nothing but some imaginary quantum vacuum background? What's the limiting factor for that? You don't need relativistic speeds for energy gains above unity in the rocket mass KE for a reaction-less drive with much higher than photon rocket thrust. An Emdrive with lower than photon rocket thrust (1 N of thrust is 300 MW) would be useless even if it did work.

 

Anyone with any curiosity of motion, mechanics, or physics should be overwhelmed with these trajectories.

These are not anomalies.....a departure from the norm. They were just un-seen and un-recognized.

It's a crack in the veil. An un-recognized crack. To slough it off is a science politic.

With Earth's helical trajectory in mind(a moving reference........normalized to a centerline equal distant and equal angle from sun).......we should heavily radar the system for a few decades and plot the true trajectories of the system. Three D movement. Not seen from afar.

A real experiment. Disprove the anomalies.

By the way......when I say helical orbits......I'm not referring to the internet or youtube helical orbits.......That has nothing to do with what I am referring to.

However.....the youtube helix orbit does affect baseline length for parallax measurements. We need the sun's true velocity for that length.

I've got a (ex-)TED talk for you.

 

The most important discovery in modern science. Not a peep. It's too embarrassing. They will not study it further. It should be on every front page. One would think real science would want to study a non-elliptical orbit in great detail. Where is the curiosity and the gravitational reckoning? Let's not talk about it.

Physicists since Newton's time have known that the planets and moons do not follow elliptic orbits. They could see it in their data and, more importantly, they understood it theoretically. The elliptic solutions to the orbital equation of motion only apply to point-mass systems with two bodies, one of which must be perfectly still. They well-knew that the solar system was full of massive bodies, all influencing each other gravitationally. Understanding the actual orbital dynamics came to be known as the n-body problem, and it has continued to be a subject of deep research (it's even harder in GR than in the Newtonian model).

The last competent physicist who believed in elliptic orbits died well over 300 years ago.

 

Physicists since Newton's time have known that the planets and moons do not follow elliptic orbits. They could see it in their data and, more importantly, they understood it theoretically. The elliptic solutions to the orbital equation of motion only apply to point-mass systems with two bodies, one of which must be perfectly still. They well-knew that the solar system was full of massive bodies, all influencing each other gravitationally. Understanding the actual orbital dynamics came to be known as the n-body problem, and it has continued to be a subject of deep research (it's even harder in GR than in the Newtonian model).

The last competent physicist who believed in elliptic orbits died well over 300 years ago.

 

@nsaspook, what do you think of this? ... yet another nothing burger?

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience​

“QI explains inertia for the first time,” McCulloch said at a TED talk earlier this year. “In a sense it unifies physics. I’m using horizons that come from relativity, but quantum waves which come from quantum physics. Actually demonstrating this in a lab is going to be very difficult because we’re going to need very high accelerations and it’s not quite known how to damp quantum waves yet. If we do it though, we should be able to launch a capsule without fuel.”

 

@nsaspook, what do you think of this? ... yet another nothing burger?

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience​

The only thing in common with a burger is it comes from the same animal but out the tail end.

Woodward is hardly alone in his skepticism about the promise of QI. In an article written for Forbes last year, Rochester Institute of Technology physicist Brian Koberlein argued QI violated the laws of physics, particularly when it was applied to the EmDrive.

“The time-varying inertia allows the EmDrive to accelerate,” Koberlein said in his appraisal of McCulloch’s paper about QI. “The idea not only violates Newton’s third law of motion, it violates special relativity, general relativity, and Noether’s theorem. Since these are each well-tested theories that form the basis of countless other theories, their violation would completely overturn all of modern physics.”

That's a good assessment.

 

Yet another attempt at designing a reactionless drive:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...lical-engine-may-violate-the-laws-of-physics/​

I've changed the title of this thread, to more accurately represent the current discussion.

It would also need to be big – some 200 metres long and 12 metres in diameter – and powerful, requiring 165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust, which is about the same force you use to type on a keyboard.

 

Yet another attempt at designing a reactionless drive:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...lical-engine-may-violate-the-laws-of-physics/​

I've changed the title of this thread, to more accurately represent the current discussion.

I would bet it doesn't violate the laws of physics. The thrust will still be less than a photon rocket.

People sometimes think that you can exploit Deceleration to extract excess energy but it doesn't work that way even at relativistic speeds. Deceleration requires energy as it's also an acceleration.

https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/acceleration/

Misconception Alert: Deceleration vs. Negative Acceleration
Deceleration always refers to acceleration in the direction opposite to the direction of the velocity. Deceleration always reduces speed. Negative acceleration, however, is acceleration in the negative direction in the chosen coordinate system. Negative acceleration may or may not be deceleration, and deceleration may or may not be considered negative acceleration. For example, consider [link].

(a) This car is speeding up as it moves toward the right. It therefore has positive acceleration in our coordinate system. (b) This car is slowing down as it moves toward the right. Therefore, it has negative acceleration in our coordinate system, because its acceleration is toward the left. The car is also decelerating: the direction of its acceleration is opposite to its direction of motion. (c) This car is moving toward the left, but slowing down over time. Therefore, its acceleration is positive in our coordinate system because it is toward the right. However, the car is decelerating because its acceleration is opposite to its motion. (d) This car is speeding up as it moves toward the left. It has negative acceleration because it is accelerating toward the left. However, because its acceleration is in the same direction as its motion, it is speeding up (not decelerating).

 

The thrust will still be less than a photon rocket.

I need to take a closer look at that argument of yours that you keep bringing up ... I'm sure you're doing it for a good reason. I'd just like to understand why.

 

I need to take a closer look at that argument of yours that you keep bringing up ... I'm sure you're doing it for a good reason. I'd just like to understand why.

The main point: A reactionless drive at a thrust greater than a massless particle at c violates conservation of momentum. This results in a 'free energy' device at some velocity of the moving mass. The higher the thrust ratio above a photon (momentum-carrying particles) rocket, the lower the net velocity needed for a perpetual motion machine.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494.pdf

A "space drive" is a hypothetical device that generates a propulsive force in free space using an input of power without the need for a reaction mass. Any device that generates photons (e.g., a laser) would qualify as a propellantless "photon rocket," but the force generated by emitting photons per power input (3.33 μN/kW) is too small to be a practical propulsion device. The ability to generate greater force per power input would be highly desirable, but, as demonstrated in this paper, such a device would be able to operate as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Since applying a constant force results in a constant acceleration, the kinetic energy of a mass driven by such a device increases quadratically with time, while the energy input increases only linearly with time. Thus, at some point, the kinetic energy of the device-driven mass exceeds the energy input, and if this energy is collected via decelerating the mass (via regenerative electromagnetic braking, for example), then there would be a net gain in energy. For devices with thrust-to-power ratios on the order of 1 N/kW that have been discussed recently in connection with the so-called EM drive, this breakeven occurs at velocities low enough to be feasible with current technology, clearly demonstrating the absurdity of such a device. When relativistic effects are taken into account, it is shown that the photon rocket can only reach energy breakeven as the accelerated mass asymptotically approaches the speed of light. Thus, any device with a thrust-to-power ratio greater than the photon rocket would be able to operate as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, and thus should be excluded by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.A34116

Such, we claim, is the situation today with the idea of the “spacedrive.” By this, we mean a system that derives its propulsion in the vacuum of space without the use of propellant (i.e., propellantless). Often, such systems are incorrectly described as being reactionless, but this actually implies something that is much more problematic. Examples of the difference include terrestrial systems like cars, boats, and aircraft. These are propellantless in the sense that you do not preload them with some quantity of mass that is then expelled to generate thrust but, rather, they generate thrust by reacting against in situ resources (ground, water, air). Even in the case of the aircraft, although the fuel is indeed expelled, it is there primarily as an energy source, and not a reaction mass. None of these systems are reactionless.

The debate about spacedrives is complicated because there is a large amount of “pseudoscience” on the topic. By pseudoscience, we are not actually referring to the application of ideas or theories that are not mainstream or “canon” but rather the application of any assumption or theory in the absence of the scientific method. This is a broad-reaching problem that goes both ways. There is the more recognizable group of individuals that gravitate toward alternative physics simply because it tends to be more accessible than the mainstream. Often, such theories have mechanical analogs that appeal to one’s sense of understanding in much same the way that quantum mechanics does not. Unfortunately, there is so much of this content available that it can be difficult to differentiate it from ideas that have stood up to the test of scrutiny.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32449240/nasa-warp-drive-space-time/
Is NASA Actually Working On a Warp Drive?

All we need is some Dilithium Crystal Meth.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32449240/nasa-warp-drive-space-time/
Is NASA Actually Working On a Warp Drive?

All we need is some Dilithium Crystal Meth.

If scientists can make the so-called “negative mass” required for an Alcubierre drive, even a tiny example could be deployed within Earth’s atmosphere.

And therein lies the caveat... where in the universe can one find such a thing? ... perhaps it's related to the mysterious force accelerating the universe's expansion?

Whatever it is, at this point that thing belongs rather to the realm of fantasy than of even science fiction... sadly.

 

I've changed the title of this thread, to more accurately represent the current discussion

All we need is some Dilithium Crystal Meth.
[/QUOTEi
You must stay at lest two parsecs away from this sector because you'll warp the frabric of space time.