13
   

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive"

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 06:08 am
Anyhow - ALL superconductor activity is 'ULTRA' patented.

4 passengers on '370' were heading to China, recently, to patent 'freescale'. Would have changed the entire paradigm.

80% share in freescale 'semi/super' conductors - On one plane.
Plane 'vanishes' - Jacob Rothschild '20% financier' becomes '100%' owner (patent-holder) of FSC.
Convenient?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 06:56 am
@Setanta,
Newtons laws one are one simple and two had been around for a few hundred years so there is no reason to think that Hawking had a better understanding of those laws then any of a few billions humans on this planet.

I love not falling back on the math in disagreements but instead reaching for some claim authority figure and not even directly from that figure but by way of some article writer who may not had have one college level course on the subject.

You guys would made good WW2 Germans in my opinion at least.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 07:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
We already accelerate "rail gun" pellets of zircon titanide at 50 g, and this nanocraft would NOIT be starting from zero when its fired on.


First 50 g is no where near 62,000 g for 20 minutes and second they are not going to be traveling at anywhere near 1/4 light speed until the lasers fired.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 07:06 am
@BillRM,
See, this is why you're not worth reading. If anyone around here would make a good Nazi, Billy boy, it would be you--you live in fantasy land. It appears that you still haven't read up on the proposal made by Hawking and Milner.

You never back-up your bullshit, you just shoot your mouth off. I have no reason to consider you expert in any subject, and given that your language skills are equivalent to those of the victim of serious head injury or massive stroke, i have no reason to consider you capable of reading an comprehending USA Today, let alone a scientific paper. Most of the scientific criticism of the proposal centers on the fact that the laser array will be on Earth, and that there doesn't seem to be provision being made for the angular momentum which focusing the laser on the "sail" will create. Laugh to your heart's content, you're the clown on every topic i've ever seen you comment upon.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 07:08 am
It's really amazing that Godwin's Law gets invoked in a thread such as this--but less surprising when one considers the incoherent source.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 07:13 am
@BillRM,
Newton (falling apple moron) and his 'laws' are ultimate bollux.
Ever considered, what you were taught, not to be factual?
Works for 'snooker', I guess..
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 07:55 am
I don't know if anyone who doesn't already understand the science cares about the science, but I will explain it anyway.

This EM Drive has nothing to do with the conservation of energy. This drive, even with its alleged miracle, still uses energy. It is claiming to solve a bigger problem.

The much bigger problem in space travel is conservation of momentum. The problem is related to Newton's second law-- "For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction" (which is a form of conservation of momentum) and the basic problem is that for a space vehicle to accelerate in one direction... it must cause matter to accelerate in the other direction.

Vehicles on Earth have a limitless supply of matter to accelerate... cars push back on the road. Airplanes push back on the air. Boats push back on the water. Spacecraft have nothing to push back on... so in a space ship, you need to carry something that you can fling into space any time you want to either speed up, slow down or change direction (even in the slightest). Of course this stuff you are flinging is a limited resource which makes long space flights under control very difficult.

This EM Drive claims to solve this problem by allowing you to accelerate (speed up, slow down or change direction) without having to fling anything out of the spacecraft.

This would be a very significant advance if it were true. Not only would it break a basic law of physics (the conservation of momentum) but it would also fix one of the current limiting factors to practical space flight.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:03 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Most of the scientific criticism of the proposal centers on the fact that the laser array will be on Earth


Yes indeed there is no problem with melting the sails down at the energy level needed or building a probe that could take 62000 g of force or sending information back home at a distance of 4 light years with a sun directly in line with the probes and the earth or .....................

You are completely right the earth atmosphere is the only problem the rest is a walk in the park.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:05 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
Newton (falling apple moron) and his 'laws' are ultimate bollux.
Ever considered, what you were taught, not to be factual?
Works for 'snooker', I guess..


Those laws are in fact still completely valid until you get within a few percent of light speed and are used every day for such things as planes, rockets and so on.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:10 am
@maxdancona,
Hell most of the people on this system do not care about science and had less of an understanding of the subject then Newton did hundreds of years ago.


0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:11 am
@BillRM,
The dynamics of relative measurements are not the point.
It is the fundamental inconsistencies in unifying the general forces that (Albeit already known by .......) stem our physical and spiritual progression.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:24 am
@mark noble,
Yes we live in a universe govern by magic and the gods.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:27 am
@BillRM,
Call it, as you wish.
I'm sticking with Tesla.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:34 am
@mark noble,
Tesla ?????????

So you are living in a home power by standing waves inducted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wireless_System
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:44 am
@BillRM,
No - Patents prevent that. Are you not paying attention?
"SEG" Searle e-gen.
They vanished, within weeks of 'coming-out'.
None of what I stated is true. I have an alibi.
You know that a2k is google-affiliated?
Such posts are merely humour-based.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:27 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
Well, that just proves Tesla correct and einstein a fraud.
Guess our descendants will get a giggle out of it.

How does it prove Einstein a fraud?
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:33 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
Newton (falling apple moron) and his 'laws' are ultimate bollux.
Ever considered, what you were taught, not to be factual?
Works for 'snooker', I guess..

The physics created by Newton produces correct answers in most of what we experience in our ordinary lives to many, many places behind the decimal and has enabled us to build our civilization. It is still being taught in physics classes all over the world, and it is still the basis of calculations by engineers and scientists in most cases. That doesn't sound like "the ultimate bollux" to me. What's next, calculus (invented by Newton) is bollux?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:34 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon - Catch up.
Google it/youtube it, just catch up.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:34 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
How does it prove Einstein a fraud?


Relaxed the man postings are interesting and sometime amusing but always sense free.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:38 am
@Brandon9000,
Can you, by your own experiments, prove ANYTHING as absolute?
Nope - You were taught it - thus it is true.
 

Related Topics

The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/30/2020 at 03:40:06