That's what I fail to understand. And obviously, it seems that you have a better understanding than me about this subject. Why would a reactionless drive violate the laws of physics as we understand them? Why do you say that it would be a free energy source? I'm trying to picture the situation you're describing in my head, but I haven't been able to. Obviously, I'm sure it has to do with relativity and the famous E=mc² equation. I just don't see the connection.

It's actually not that complicated.

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
...
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.
...
For example, an evacuated track 10 km long and supplied with 1 GW of power that is fed via induction along the track to a 100 kg mass equipped with an EM drive would result in the mass experiencing an acceleration of 4000 m/s 2 (i.e., 407 g’s) and having a velocity of 8.94 km/s at the end of the track, at which point the mass would have a kinetic energy of 4 GJ. The time to accelerate the mass is only 2.23 seconds, however, so the energy input required is only 2.23 GJ. At the end of the track, the mass could be decelerated via regenerative braking, generating more energy out (4 GJ) than was input (2.23 GJ), for a net gain of 1.76 GJ free energy.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494.pdf

 

Its the saying stuff has to be compatable to our current physics that gets to me. Its putting laws on the universe that i think will prevent us from seeing things that defy laws. People see flying objects all the time and those seem to defy normal physics. And it depends if u believe or are aware of different realities or multiple realities. A lot of what our reality is seems to come from the senses we get from our brains but we are not usimg all of our brains so as we unlock them there could be more senses and even sight of energies we could not see before

 

Its the saying stuff has to be compatable to our current physics that gets to me. Its putting laws on the universe that i think will prevent us from seeing things that defy laws. People see flying objects all the time and those seem to defy normal physics. And it depends if u believe or are aware of different realities or multiple realities. A lot of what our reality is seems to come from the senses we get from our brains but we are not usimg all of our brains so as we unlock them there could be more senses and even sight of energies we could not see before

In science you just can't make things up because you want it to happen. Nature didn't need human brains to evolve flying objects over billions of years and there is zero evidence that human brains process some magically arranged set of atoms that can change the fundamental nature of the universe just by thinking about it. It's easy to confuse the inner reality of our imaginations with the physical reality. That, for me is the magic of the human brain, the ability to imagine a possible future with known facts and to extrapolate those facts into a real future.

You might say, how do we know the physical reality is real? Easy, stand in front of a moving train.

 

Its the saying stuff has to be compatable to our current physics that gets to me. Its putting laws on the universe that i think will prevent us from seeing things that defy laws.

To appreciate the limits of physics, one must first understand physics.

People see flying objects all the time and those seem to defy normal physics.

See above.

 

It's actually not that complicated.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494.pdf

I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying. It's all about conservation of momentum, if I'mnot mistaken.

And yet... one thing for certain at this point is that we don't yet know everything there is to know about physics. In fact, we're still badly wanting an explanation for what more than 95% of the universe actually is... I can only hope that at least half of that mistery will be solved in the 40 to 45 years more of life that I can hopefully expect.

 

Momentum is neither conserved or equalized. Almost all the momentum in the universe is angular, not linear.

All emission is loss of momentum.

There are two types of angular momentum. Left and right. The right has about 2000 fold the momentum of the left.

This asymmetric ratio is constant thru-out the cosmos.

How would such a momentum mismatch affect a universe? What would such a potential do?

 

I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying. It's all about conservation of momentum, if I'mnot mistaken.

And yet... one thing for certain at this point is that we don't yet know everything there is to know about physics. In fact, we're still badly wanting an explanation for what more than 95% of the universe actually is... I can only hope that at least half of that mistery will be solved in the 40 to 45 years more of life that I can hopefully expect.

C O E/M is an important limitation but that can be fudged a little at the micro scales. NO FREE LUNCH aka the thermodynamic laws hold without even a scientific hint they fail in closed/isolated systems. Even 'God' had to work 6 'days' to create the universe. So if there is available energy outside our universe maybe a god-like super-being can tap it and reorder entropy but I don't see humans belonging in that class for a while.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Firstlaw.html
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105.html

Conservation of energy
10-13-99

Sections 6.5 - 6.8

The conservation of mechanical energy
Mechanical energy is the sum of the potential and kinetic energies in a system. The principle of the conservation of mechanical energy states that the total mechanical energy in a system (i.e., the sum of the potential plus kinetic energies) remains constant as long as the only forces acting are conservative forces. We could use a circular definition and say that a conservative force as a force which doesn't change the total mechanical energy, which is true, but might shed much light on what it means.

A good way to think of conservative forces is to consider what happens on a round trip. If the kinetic energy is the same after a round trip, the force is a conservative force, or at least is acting as a conservative force. Consider gravity; you throw a ball straight up, and it leaves your hand with a certain amount of kinetic energy. At the top of its path, it has no kinetic energy, but it has a potential energy equal to the kinetic energy it had when it left your hand. When you catch it again it will have the same kinetic energy as it had when it left your hand. All along the path, the sum of the kinetic and potential energy is a constant, and the kinetic energy at the end, when the ball is back at its starting point, is the same as the kinetic energy at the start, so gravity is a conservative force.

Kinetic friction, on the other hand, is a non-conservative force, because it acts to reduce the mechanical energy in a system. Note that non-conservative forces do not always reduce the mechanical energy; a non-conservative force changes the mechanical energy, so a force that increases the total mechanical energy, like the force provided by a motor or engine, is also a non-conservative force.

 

C O E/M is an important limitation but that can be fudged a little at the micro scales. NO FREE LUNCH aka the thermodynamic laws hold without even a scientific hint they fail in closed/isolated systems. Even 'God' had to work 6 'days' to create the universe. So if there is available energy outside our universe maybe a god-like super-being can tap it and reorder entropy but I don't see humans belonging in that class for a while.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Firstlaw.html
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105.html

Not to veer of course... but this is getting interesting... Where would you say that the energy released (and that was necessary for its expansion, I'm not talking about the matetter-antimatter annihilation process) at the moment of the Big Bang came from? I mean, it appears to me that at that moment a huge amount of energy was somehow infused into the universe.

 

The ultimate mystery. We just don't know how it's possible to have infinite density and zero volume. Infinities are useful in mathematics but not so much in explaining reality.

Energy–momentum conservation is not conserved globally in general relativity except in certain special cases. We don't understand the physics of space-time, energy and mass when globally is zero in dimensions of space-time.
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

 

The ultimate mystery.

Yeah... for me, another mind-boggling theory is Mach's principle... it ranks right up there with the origin of the universe itself, imho

 

Yeah... for me, another mind-boggling theory is Mach's principle... it ranks right up there with the origin of the universe itself, imho

I would think that most physicists would say that Mach's principle was superseded by general relativity and the GR version of the universe was proven more useful for physical prediction of local interaction from distant events by the detection of gravitational waves.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

Gravitational waves are 'ripples' in the fabric of space-time caused by some of the most violent and energetic processes in the Universe. Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity. Einstein's mathematics showed that massive accelerating objects (such as neutron stars or black holes orbiting each other) would disrupt space-time in such a way that 'waves' of distorted space would radiate from the source (like the movement of waves away from a stone thrown into a pond). Furthermore, these ripples would travel at the speed of light through the Universe, carrying with them information about their cataclysmic origins, as well as invaluable clues to the nature of gravity itself.

 

Reminds me of a physic problem where a rotating lawn sprinkler was connected to a vacuum line instead of a pressurized hose.

Which way will it spin?

 

Reminds me of a physic problem where a rotating lawn sprinkler was connected to a vacuum line instead of a pressurized hose.

Which way will it spin?

I first learned about that problem when I read Richard Feynman's bio "Surely you're joking" ... my conclusion was that the thing would spin in the opposite direction.

 

Then why is so much of it turned off. All thst space for what? Guess u dont believe we can connect with our brains. Arent they electrical signals. wWere just not in full control of it i dunno i just kinda think of a brain like a computer. Those use electical signals like we do and can connect with other electrical circuits wirelessly. I dont really have any experience with what these signals in our brain exactly are but ive been told electrical.Maybe need the right element to connect.

 

Reminds me of a physic problem where a rotating lawn sprinkler was connected to a vacuum line instead of a pressurized hose.

Which way will it spin?

You only have to look at where the pressure differentials are in space (vortex inside the hub) for directed flows. I too remember reading about Feynman doing this experiment.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b38b/a03b7cf1a401400577866618bd9680e85f28.pdf

 

The created vortex inside the sprinkler hub is easy to see with a 'Cyclone' type vacuum cleaner that's designed with only one offset inlet to force a fixed vortex rotation direction.

 

Not to veer of course... but this is getting interesting... Where would you say that the energy released (and that was necessary for its expansion, I'm not talking about the matetter-antimatter annihilation process) at the moment of the Big Bang came from? I mean, it appears to me that at that moment a huge amount of energy was somehow infused into the universe.

One way to think about this is to remember that notions such as energy are part of a model and don't make sense outside of the model. The poorly-named Big Bang marks the edge of most models. So, talking about energy at t <= 0 is akin to talking about the color of a road map outside of its plane. In other words, we can't say anything meaningful in the language of the model about stuff outside the model.

While that's all true and fine, it's ultimately unsatisfying. So, another way to think about this is to consider that the total energy of the universe has always been and will always be the same. Note that energy only becomes interesting when it can be used to do work, and this is where the notion of entropy comes in. In the plasma soup of the Big Bang, entropy was high but far lower than the maximum entropy for the total energy of the universe. Quantum uncertainty ensured that there were tiny difference in the initial distribution of energy, and those gradients -- driven by competing forces -- kick-started expansion. The abundance of usable energy allowed the universe to do work, creating atoms and galaxies and us, as it races to maximize entropy and reach thermal equilibrium.