NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

here is the chinese paper on thier version of shayer's device: www.emdrive.com...

you wanna know the difference between us and the Chinese? The Chinese are putting this sucker into space. That's what. plus they got more thrust out of theirs. (If i weren't laughing i would be crying.) we suck when it comes to accepting new paradigms.

It's almost guaranteed to be a false positive and the result is attributed more to experimental error and poor methodology rather than a discovery of new physics (which is not going to happen at these scales, I'm afraid).

originally posted by: Diablos
It's almost guaranteed to be a false positive and the result is attributed more to experimental error and poor methodology rather than a discovery of new physics (which is not going to happen at these scales, I'm afraid).

Well you never know but first someone else needs to reproduce the same results and yes they are catching lots of flak. Apparently alot of people believe it is just an error in the experiment oddly there having problems reproducing the previous results.

full paper not the abstract:

www.libertariannews.org...

a reply to: dragonridr

Do you have any links to the labs having difficulties reproducing the results?

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Do you agree or disagree that force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation, logically speaking?

I'm wondering why my question never got answered.

I thought it was an important question - in that it went to the heart of the matter of cause vs. effect.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Do you agree or disagree that force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation, logically speaking?

I'm wondering why my question never got answered.

I thought it was an important question - in that it went to the heart of the matter of cause vs. effect.

You can say that, the effects of force are observable phenomena

originally posted by: Nochzwei
You can say that, the effects of force are observable phenomena

Is there any difference between what you have said and the way Bearden words it:

Force is an observable, and all observables are effect of the observation process a priori.

www.cheniere.org...

The reason why I quoted Bearden was this quote:

originally posted by: Harte
The thread is about a new means of obtaining a thrust, which is force.

Followed by my statement:

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I believe I've heard Tom Bearden say that mainstream science does not have a clear definition of "force."

Bearden makes the point that mainstream science suffers from a fundamental duality in the notion of force, and that physicists confuse effect as cause in their use of the field concept. He says they recognize duality because they wanted to stop fighting and either use the particle view or the wave view as one wished, if it worked. But that does not solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of cause and effect.

He says the field concept is an example of two contradictory things being referred to by one concept.

He says that force is an effect and never a cause but as a term is used nearly universally as a cause.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Do you agree or disagree that force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation, logically speaking?

I agree that force is an effect that is observable

I'm wondering why my question never got answered.

depends on the question I think, my questions and posts in any thread are mostly ignored every time contradictor has no argument

a reply to: Mary Rose

Bearden makes the point that mainstream science suffers from a fundamental duality in the notion of force, and that physicists confuse effect as cause in their use of the field concept. He says they recognize duality because they wanted to stop fighting and either use the particle view or the wave view as one wished, if it worked. But that does not solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of cause and effect. He says the field concept is an example of two contradictory things being referred to by one concept. He says that force is an effect and never a cause but as a term is used nearly universally as a cause.

force is an effect as I said earlier, but force can be the cause for movement for example.
so it is effect that causes something else..

a reply to: KrzYma

Here is the beginning of the Bearden piece:

Engines and Templates: Correcting Effects Confused as Causes

Ó 2001 T.E. Bearden

Adapted from personal correspondence

Foreword:

Though deliberately informal, this is a very difficult paper, both to write and to read. We are struggling to explain and correct one of the great, pervasive flaws in physics foundations, which is the confusion of cause and effect, both in mechanics and particularly in electrodynamics. The reader is likely to find the going very rough; indeed, one will need to continually reflect very deeply on the "operational observation situation applying or not applying to what is being discussed at this moment".

I apologize for the density of the subject matter and that in a single sentence it is necessary to switch between two opposite operational situations. The "implicitly assumed" operational situation has been largely hidden and misunderstood for more than a century, and is still vastly confused in the extant physics literature. We attempt to point out how these assumptions (often quite unconsciously) were included by the older pioneering physicists. Some foundations quotations are added to show the problem and that it has not been solved.

So we advise patience if the reader is truly interested in this important foundations issue and a possible resolution. We urge the reader to heed Einstein's excellent advice, which he stated so beautifully as:

"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." [Albert Einstein, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. viii.]

Lindsay and Margenau, in their noted Foundations of Physics, make the same point:

"[Hypotheses made without realizing that they are being made] …are what Poincaré has called "unconscious" or "natural" hypotheses—a type which one hardly ever challenges, for it seems too unlikely that we could make progress without them. Nevertheless it should be the endeavor of the physicist always to drag them out into the light of day, so that it may be perfectly clear what we are actually doing."

Physicists have indeed struggled with the "confusion of cause and effect" but usually under different terminology—often speaking of "dual" use or of a "duality" theory. E.g., Sen states it as particle and field (but note that field is usually intended to imply cause, and particle is usually intended to imply effect). Quoting Sen:

"…it seems to be a strange characteristic of the human mind that it is forced to describe the physical properties of matter either as fields or particles. The whole history of physics appears as a struggle to either clarify or escape from this either or dichotomy."

"…a theory [is] dualistic if it supposes that the source of the field, i.e., the particles with their characteristic masses and charge, etc., form a separate entity apart from the field which they generate." [D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.].

www.cheniere.org...

Too good to be true. I read the wired article, but something has me twitching. It's like that dumb Megolodon series on discovery that was completely fictional and yet fooled a lot of people into believing it. Ever since that happened I've been extra skeptical of anything I see on TV. I'm already well aware of the many untrue claims and all the money thrown at psuedoscientific quackery. Yet people keep doing it. I'm prepared for whatever this EM-drive malarcky is to be proven untrue and (without regret) put on the trash pile with all the rest of the BS.

And yet there's REAL science that may get us to Mars in < 2 months:
www.theregister.co.uk - NASA-backed fusion engine could cut Mars trip down to 30 days...

Now the technology isn't completed for the above and it may turn out to be terribly ineffective, but my point is: Not everything amazing has to be BS. There're multitudes of miracles all around us. Even this computer I"m using to type this message was once thought to be only a dream.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

You fail to understand a very important part of the scientific method: when there is debate and/or ambiguity over results, is is up to the scientists proposing new ideas/data to answer such criticism and/or perform additional testing to eliminate all sources of potential error. Upon doing so, the results should be indisputable. People getting emotionally invested in ideas before the matter is settled and pointing the finger at others for not being so credulous are doing a disservice to science.

a reply to: Mary Rose
sorry, I have stopped reading at Time-Reversal and Pumping.
if someone starts talking about time going backwards I give up !
this is mathematics and not reality.
For the difference between mathematics and reality I requote what I have heard a long time ago

...if there are three people in a room, and five of those people go out of the room, two more people have to go in, for the room to be empty.

unfortunately all physics is based on mathematics and also negative numbers.
I think this is the biggest problem in physics leading to time reversal, negative kinetic energies and other strange theories.

cause and effect... what is the exact problem with that ?
something is the cause of an effect and this effect can be a cause for another effect.
... if it's not circular like Einstein's gravity explanation

originally posted by: KrzYma
sorry, I have stopped reading at Time-Reversal and Pumping.

Apparently, this is the first occurrence of the term “time-reversed”:

This informal paper is certainly not intended to be the "definitive statement" on the matter! Instead, it is intended to merely point the way to a deeper consideration of the field, and to its present erratic and erroneous usage in a dualistic manner, and to how to solve the problem.

We use a simple "discriminating" notion: We use "observation" as a process occurring in ongoing spacetime, involving a cause acting on (interacting with) a previously observed effect, generating a change (effect) in that previously observed effect. Whenever one says the word "effect," one assumes (usually unconsciously) a continual iteration of observation. In short, we assume the continual iterative production of effects, each rigorously static and frozen, much like the frames of a movie film. The "progress of change" is added by perception, by our mind's normal operation which is innate. On the other hand, we point out the assumption, in that notion of continual iterative observations, of "time-forward" motion through time. In a time-reversed situation, the exact opposite happens, and we may think of the observation interaction as reversed in direction in the iteration of the d/dt operator. In short, we go back along the movie film, so to speak, rather than forward. Thus perceptually we would "see" (not observe!) the steady production of what had previously been the causal set, but backwards, from what had previously been the effects set (but backwards). We may regard this as the production of reversed time-forward "causes" from reversed time-forward "effects". Only the reversed time-forward "effects" constitute observables; the stream of "produced causes" is not observable. Nonetheless, that stream can be calculated, and in fact does appear in that manner in general relativity.

www.cheniere.org...

a reply to: Mary Rose

so what do you want me to say, I stopped at the second or third time-reversal... ?
actually it is the 6th !

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Mary Rose

Bearden makes the point that mainstream science suffers from a fundamental duality in the notion of force, and that physicists confuse effect as cause in their use of the field concept. He says they recognize duality because they wanted to stop fighting and either use the particle view or the wave view as one wished, if it worked. But that does not solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of cause and effect. He says the field concept is an example of two contradictory things being referred to by one concept. He says that force is an effect and never a cause but as a term is used nearly universally as a cause.

force is an effect as I said earlier, but force can be the cause for movement for example.
so it is effect that causes something else..

The easiest definition for effect in science is something that has been observed. So when we say force is an effect it means we have observed it. Effects can get really strange like say the Mpemba Effect which is Hot Water Freezes before Cold. So in other words if force is observed it becomes an effect but if it isnt than it no longer is an effect.

Kraxyma your right!
He makes the statement reversed time forward effect wtf ?? He says these little circular arguments to confuse the gullible or hes just blowing smoke. Either way its comical however. Hes showing a clear lack of understanding on t symetry and apparently think it means time is actually reversed.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: KrzYma
sorry, I have stopped reading at Time-Reversal and Pumping.

Apparently, this is the first occurrence of the term “time-reversed”:

This informal paper is certainly not intended to be the "definitive statement" on the matter! Instead, it is intended to merely point the way to a deeper consideration of the field, and to its present erratic and erroneous usage in a dualistic manner, and to how to solve the problem.

We use a simple "discriminating" notion: We use "observation" as a process occurring in ongoing spacetime, involving a cause acting on (interacting with) a previously observed effect, generating a change (effect) in that previously observed effect. Whenever one says the word "effect," one assumes (usually unconsciously) a continual iteration of observation. In short, we assume the continual iterative production of effects, each rigorously static and frozen, much like the frames of a movie film. The "progress of change" is added by perception, by our mind's normal operation which is innate. On the other hand, we point out the assumption, in that notion of continual iterative observations, of "time-forward" motion through time. In a time-reversed situation, the exact opposite happens, and we may think of the observation interaction as reversed in direction in the iteration of the d/dt operator. In short, we go back along the movie film, so to speak, rather than forward. Thus perceptually we would "see" (not observe!) the steady production of what had previously been the causal set, but backwards, from what had previously been the effects set (but backwards). We may regard this as the production of reversed time-forward "causes" from reversed time-forward "effects". Only the reversed time-forward "effects" constitute observables; the stream of "produced causes" is not observable. Nonetheless, that stream can be calculated, and in fact does appear in that manner in general relativity.

www.cheniere.org...

if you mean in physics at large; no time reversed is an old term in physics. as is retarded and advanced waves which refer to the same general type of situation. those terms date back to wheeler and feynman at the very least.

oh hey! not completely off topic but not entirely on topic: someone found Dr White's slide show from a 2009 or so presentation on his warp theory and on q thrusters. lots of neat information in there:

www.astronautical.org...

a reply to: stormbringer1701
No, I meant in the Bearden piece, but any light you can shed on the context of the terminology in the piece would be much appreciated:

"Engines and Templates: Correcting Effects Confused as Causes"