It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

page: 7
150
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
So... what would this thing physically sound like in an atmosphere such as ours? Would there be any sound emitted by it?
I mean from the very process in which it produces thrust.




posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psykotik
So... what would this thing physically sound like in an atmosphere such as ours? Would there be any sound emitted by it?
I mean from the very process in which it produces thrust.


I would guess the only noise would be the aerodynamic noise of the craft passing through the air.

Supposedly there is no propellant mass leaving the engine, and no moving parts, so it should be pretty quiet...

Edit: although having said that, microwave ovens can be pretty noisy while the magnetron is powered up.
edit on 1-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: hmmmbeer


That's because YOU don't understand the construction and physics of that event



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
i love these statements about how science works, how scientists really are etc... when people here often do not sound like they have been anywhere near anyone with any background in science.

It goes the same for statements here that people have in which they say

"I dont know anything about the subject, but my opinion is that x is true and you cannot tell me otherwise. Oh and furthermore this is how the subject works."

The contradiction is spectacular.

Furthermore i am with you there Rob... it is interesting how people spend 90% of the time discussing how mainstream science is wrong, covering up the truth, conspiracy conspiracy, cannot trust the mainstream... but the moment a mainstream scientist or institute shows something they like... suddenly it is like 110% evidence...

Sorry but cant have it both ways. not to have it both ways is called bias and cherry picking. Actual science tries to get as little bias as possible. Now that isn't 100% possible either, because scientists are human... but as iv said many many times, most science is performed by down to earth people who you could quite easily have good and interesting conversations with, if you are willing to drop the pretence


Also, 9/11 stuff has a place... and all i will say is the following. Aircraft are wafer thin, yield strength of steel reduces ALOT when you heat it and building 7 had one side almost completely removed by debris, and the buildings internal loading was retrofitted to allow for an elevator shaft to be fitted... basically please don't be so ignorant of material science and take the 9/11 conspiracies to the correct forum



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

A - You cite Wired UK as any source for a serious Physics article....nuff said.
B - All your blacklight references and facts are from the blacklight website...no conflict of interest there right.
C- You then rant about society = you have zero credibility to talk about anything physics related, get back to me when you get your Bachelors.
edit on 1-8-2014 by motthoople because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

You hit the nail on the head, that's why this is a conspiracy site, facts are irrelevant, education is moot and unnecessary.
edit on 1-8-2014 by motthoople because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: motthoople
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

A - You cite Wired UK as any source for a serious Physics article....nuff said.
B - All your blacklight references and facts are from the blacklight website...no conflict of interest there right.
C- You then rant about society = you have zero credibility to talk about anything physics related, get back to me when you get your Bachelors.


I really don't understand people like you.

You confuse me.

I write an article pointing out that new forms of energy production and transportation are possible and you come in here all negative nancy for no good reason. It's like the possibility of having free energy and flying cars pisses you off for some reason. I'm curious why.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
the resonant cavity with rf injection also characterizes the Meyer water powered car circuit diagram and gas generator...and i have to thank anarchoC for putting this together.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Maybe because we have far too often seen that someone hits the drums - tries to get some moneyz - then nothing, never again.

Therefore, anyone should take those ideas who promote a great new idea, which coincidentally goes against some major physical laws, with a nice cup of salt.

We will see. But don't expect overenthusiasm (at least from people who were given phds or bat. in physically oriented areas), until at least a working prototype has been presented (preferrably verifiable?). We will not and never hinder new ideas or developments, but we have seen far too often some snakeoilsales.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: motthoople
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

A - You cite Wired UK as any source for a serious Physics article....nuff said.
B - All your blacklight references and facts are from the blacklight website...no conflict of interest there right.
C- You then rant about society = you have zero credibility to talk about anything physics related, get back to me when you get your Bachelors.


I really don't understand people like you.

You confuse me.

I write an article pointing out that new forms of energy production and transportation are possible and you come in here all negative nancy for no good reason. It's like the possibility of having free energy and flying cars pisses you off for some reason. I'm curious why.


The problem is that so many of these have the strong whiff of scam about them.

The EmDrive is actually quite interesting, but you also promoted BlackLight Power in your opening post, and BlackLight is an undisputed, dyed-in-the-wool, 100% guaranteed FRAUD. Just like that gold-from-beer-bottles scam you were punting a few weeks ago.
edit on 1-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
heh. the only fraud scientist i know of that NASA employs is that Dr. Mann AGW hockey sticks chart faking goober.

Dr White and Dr March are not frauds and they were two of the authors on the NASA version of this thingy.
edit on 1-8-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
The problem is that so many of these have the strong whiff of scam about them.

The EmDrive is actually quite interesting, but you also promoted BlackLight Power in your opening post, and BlackLight is an undisputed, dyed-in-the-wool, 100% guaranteed FRAUD. Just like that gold-from-beer-bottles scam you were punting a few weeks ago.


So you believe that all of the universities and engineering firms confirming Blacklight's results made them up?

And you believe the video demonstrations with lab tests in them, along with numerous PhDs, engineers, and contractors are all staged?

Or do you believe all of the universities and engineering firms are part of grand conspiracy to defraud investors?


edit on 8/1/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

When I see a device that works I will happily eat humble pie.

Until then I am pretty certain that those suckers who poured $65m into the company won't see a dime coming back.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Sorry to interrupt, but...

Because the infancy of the Internet the web was polluted with these websites filled with wrong information. Most of them were made by people who knew how to write and barely.

It created a whole subculture that spread to all types of pseudo-science. People don't believe in medicine, astronomy, biology or anything that is produced by major universities only because someone around the Internet says "666 the devil is infiltrated in governments", and instead of reading that and laughing it off, people actually believe it.

The fact is, scientific discoveries are jumping up again because a whole new batch of scientists with fresh minds are arriving to places of influence where they can support their projects. It also aids the fact that the paradigm in science itself has changed. I think it's a wonderful thing to find out that things we knew for certain and limited our actions and theories, are proven to be false.

A true scientist will get excited by the fact he is wrong, for being wrong opens more possibilities than the status quo. It's a very positive thing to have the possibility that what we considered "laws" of physics could be reshaped, altered or controlled, the same way we learned to combine materials and produce new alloys.

However, the people who actually had some positive contribution in the early stages to change the outdated paradigms (like searching for alien life, alternative theories on the creation or possibility of life in other planets, etc...) are the same ones who are desperetly clinching to their opinions and views.

And that's why there is this annoying layer of people today who quote BS in order to make a point and don't even understand the science behind it all. I just came from a thread where a member judged my intellect as inferior because I had an education, and the reason was "I don't believe in education".

Just the fact the information comes from an official source is enough for some people to immediately dismiss it.
edit on 1-8-2014 by VashKonnor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
so it's a fraud eh? so how come these people wrote a paper for NASA on it?




Brady, David (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
White, Harold G. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
March, Paul (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
Lawrence, James T. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
Davies, Frank J. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States)


can you write NASA and let them know these people are frauds please?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: boomerdude

eh; nasa employees aren't gods, they're human beings, and they're not using magic, they're using technology, which breaks or malfunctions, or gives mis-readings, or whatever.... the EmDrive seems pretty interesting, but there is probably some stupid explination like with that LHC-faster than light thing.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
here's da linky: ntrs.nasa.gov...

so if its a fraud i guess somayew non fraud science types should go tell 'em! Go get um!
edit on 1-8-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: boomerdude

eh; nasa employees aren't gods, they're human beings, and they're not using magic, they're using technology, which breaks or malfunctions, or gives mis-readings, or whatever.... the EmDrive seems pretty interesting, but there is probably some stupid explination like with that LHC-faster than light thing.


i don't think so! because the device, actually a spate of similar devices are getting results all over the place. it cannot be a loose wire or a cross eyed observer.

Woodward has one of these things. he detects thrust. March worked with him for a time. White has one. and these fellas in the UK have one. it's not some youtube basement dwelling kook showing you his levitating ice maker. it's universtity class physicists and NASA grade scientists.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psykotik
cool. F%$# politics for a sec... can we talk about the technology here?


There is no technology...

This is a drive, which through Electro Magnetism, creates propulsion without exhausting anything. That is, it isn't transforming energy. The "author" claims it uses two "relativistic" frameworks ... it's kind of "scam" explanation, that really doesn't fit.

What it really means, is that there is "burning" or energy transformation that takes place, but it's hidden from view and measurements.

The other "wannabee" explanation, is that the device is pushing against materia known as "aether". Something that has been widely thrown out of the science chambers.

In reality, it says that NASA is more or less incompetent, because wether it's a scan or not. They should have taken this into into research, back in the year 2000 and gotten to the bottom of it. Instead, they chose to ignore it and now there's a lot of "wannabe" explanations, that may cause "political" views on the subject.

And this isn't the first time NASA makes "political" statements, that are vague ...

However, what can be said ... is that it does not break any laws of physics.

edit on 1/8/2014 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

lol; I don't think you know anything about NASA.

NASA if anything, doesn't take enough credit.

NASA is decended from NACA, an agency that basically did a lot of developmental work, and provided test-facilities for the aircraft industry from the 1920's to the 1950's when NASA was created, NASA carries on this tradition by basically providing test-facilities and equipment for aerospace firms to test new designs.



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join