Can anyone in this forum explain in understandable terms how this is possible?:

Check this article, and this link.

Might this be true? Is this a scam? I consider myself an open minded person, though I try to keep it not so open that my brains would fall off...
Still, to have the likes of NASA even consider this technology can only mean that this is a work in progress.

 

It's not.
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/no-nasa-has-not-verified-an-impossible-space-drive.html
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/no-nasa-has-not-verified-an-impossible-space-drive.html

http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf

 

It's not.http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/no-nasa-has-not-verified-an-impossible-space-drive.html
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/no-nasa-has-not-verified-an-impossible-space-drive.html
http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf

Well, your first link ends with the phrase: "Perhaps more research will show this to be nothing real or even verify these findings with exciting results. Let’s wait and see." ... but the PDF document definitely slams the whole thing ... although the former is 8 years more recent than the latter...
I haven't read them thoroughly yet, but tonight I will... Thank you very much for the links, by the way.

 

Well, your first link ends with the phrase: "Perhaps more research will show this to be nothing real or even verify these findings with exciting results. Let’s wait and see." ... but the PDF document definitely slams the whole thing ... although the former is 8 years more recent than the latter...
I haven't read them thoroughly yet, but tonight I will... Thank you very much for the links, by the way.

The first guy was just being nice as was NASA. NASA measured two devices, one a non-working control and the 'thrust' device. The got the same results from the placebo machine and the thruster.

 

The first guy was just being nice as was NASA. NASA measured two devices, one a non-working control and the 'thrust' device. The got the same results from the placebo machine and the thruster.

The interesting thing here as that no definite NO was given by Mr Johnson in his article, and he seems like a serious scientist. I'm pretty sure that if I were to ask him about a perpetual motion machine or something like that, his answer would indeed be a loud NO. In his article he makes it clear that he leans (heavily) towards the impossibility of this drive... I'm under the impression that he wasn't just being nice, but was trying to be objective with a healthy dose of skepticism...
On the other hand, Mr Costella gives very compelling arguments against it, pouring all the known theory passionately against it ...
I guess that it all depends on the amount of time and money (and prestige) someone would be willing to spend in this research. The reticence of spending money is easy to understand by anyone. But maybe this area of science (if it is indeed science we're seeing here) is still so murky at this point that a serious scientist might feel that his reputation would have too much to lose if he were to be even associated with this thing (maybe most scientists are ranking the seriousness of the Emdrive right up there along with cold fusion) ... In my case I'd probably not spend too much of my resources in this thing either, since I'm also rather skeptical, but I'm still going to follow further developments just out of sheer curiosity.

 

It's one of those things that once you use the magic 'quantum' word with then just about anything is possible. It's possible a 1959 pink Cadillac could materialize in my driveway if all the probabilities of matter in the universe where to happen. It would take longer than the age of the known universe multiplied upon itself to happen but it's 'possible'.

Q: What's the difference between a quantum mechanic and an auto mechanic?
A: A quantum mechanic can get his car into the garage without opening the
door.

 

It's one of those things that once you use the magic 'quantum' word with then just about anything is possible

Yeah I know... the word quantum has been very much abused in the past two decades. From "quantum medicine" (I call it quackum medicine) to quantum consciousness and quantum religion ... it seems that whenever something cannot be explained in normal terms, then it has to be quantum-something ...
Thanks for the chat, it's been interesting.

 

It's one of those things that once you use the magic 'quantum' word with then just about anything is possible. It's possible a 1959 pink Cadillac could materialize in my driveway if all the probabilities of matter in the universe where to happen. It would take longer than the age of the know universe multiplied upon itself to happen but it's 'possible'.



Q: What's the difference between a quantum mechanic and an auto mechanic?
A: A quantum mechanic can get his car into the garage without opening the
door.

@nsaspook,
Be careful with talking about what is possible, you might fall into a conversation with this guy...

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/the-electro-dynamics-of-moving-objects.104353/

 

That explains how "Santa" can get all those gifts into one "Bag"

GopherT, like the "Hat" very festive.

 

Had to be a big Santa hat though, to cover all the feathers!

 

Had to be a big Santa hat though, to cover all the feathers!

Lol Nice and you threw me way off with your profile pic too..

 

@nsaspook,
Be careful with talking about what is possible, you might fall into a conversation with this guy...

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/the-electro-dynamics-of-moving-objects.104353/

Nice santa hat, Gopher... but may I remind you that this is MY thread, and I refuse to be outdone...

 

It seems like the neighborhood has re-awakened the Emdrive gossip again... this time with recent news that are far more reaching than the drive's original intention:

That’s the big surprise. This signature (the interference pattern) on the EmDrive looks just like what a warp bubble looks like. And the math behind the warp bubble apparently matches the interference pattern found in the EmDrive.

Here's another link to the same story.

 

Bull-hockey

 

Bull-hockey

Thanks for the laugh... really...

The experiment has not been peer-reviewed, and as I already said, it's only gossip so far... and of course cannot be taken with complete seriousness...

Still, I'd like to know where it leads... it's probably 80% (or much higher than that) a hoax like the one-way trip to Mars, or (even with the best of intentions) simple experimental error... If it belongs to the latter group, I just want to know how far that 1% chance of success leads.
Wouldn't put my money on it, of course... just my day-dreaming

 

Bull-hockey

Toro mierda for our Spanish speaking friends.

 

Toro mierda for our Spanish speaking friends.

Et tu, Brute?

 

Smells like a hoax to me. Possibly unintentional self-delusion.

 

Smells like a hoax to me. Possibly unintentional self-delusion.

Quite possibly... but what if... and most importantly, how much does figuring out that "what if" costs?
Usually, money is the measure of the seriousness with which any research is taken.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9805003v2.pdf

"The present theorem rules out the existence, rather than construction, of superluminal travel, unless there is weak energy condition violation. "

My question would be how can you extract momentum or energy from the lowest possible energy state (Quantum Vacuum)?