Propellantless System For Satellites Will Get Tested In Space (universetoday.com) 299
Longtime Slashdot reader drwho writes: A new type of propulsion system which uses no propellant, but rather only electricity, will be tested in a satellite to be launched from June 10's Falcon 9 launch. The IVO Quantum Drive utilizes an alternative theory of inertia known as "Quantum Inertia' by its originator Prof. Mike McCullough of U. Plymouth, which seeks to reconcile General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Field Theory (QFT). If successful, this would herald in a new era not only in satellite technology but in space travel as a whole. See this article for more details.
GR + QFT (Score:2, Funny)
But does it have NFTs?
It is an NFT (Score:2)
But does it have NFTs?
Yes - the entire thing is an NFT. An NFT is something everyone knows really has no value but that they buy anyway in the hope that magically the price will go up and they can then sell their valueless URL to someone else for more money. This theory is one that everyone knows really does not work but that they buy into it because of what it would mean for space travel.
Both are based on people's hope for the future overriding their common sense and understanding of today. That people are so hopeful for th
Even ChatGPT smells BS (Score:5, Informative)
Propellantless space propulsion systems, also known as reactionless drives, are theoretical propulsion systems that don't rely on the principle of action and reaction (Newton's third law) to generate thrust. These systems operate by interacting with the fabric of space-time itself, exploiting various physical phenomena such as the Casimir effect, the zero-point energy of the vacuum, and others.
There are several proposed propellantless propulsion systems, each with its own unique mechanisms and principles. Here are a few examples:
EmDrive: The EmDrive, or electromagnetic drive, uses microwaves to create a thrust without the need for a propellant. The theory behind the EmDrive is that the microwaves inside the device create a change in the local space-time curvature, producing a net thrust in a particular direction.
Mach Effect Drive: The Mach Effect Drive (MED) is a propellantless propulsion system that uses a resonant cavity filled with a dielectric material to generate a force. The dielectric material is subjected to an oscillating electromagnetic field, creating a difference in the rest mass of the material. This change in mass generates a reactionless force, producing a thrust.
Q-Thruster: The Q-Thruster, or quantum vacuum plasma thruster, exploits the quantum vacuum fluctuations that exist in space-time. The Q-Thruster works by creating a difference in the vacuum energy density on opposite sides of the device, producing a net force.
It's important to note that while these propulsion systems have been proposed, they are still largely theoretical and have yet to be fully demonstrated or proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the Helical Engine [nasa.gov], while being a thought experiment, does coin an awesome phrase, "Relativistic Momentum Transfer Model" to describe what is essentially a space rated synchotron
Re:Even ChatGPT smells BS (Score:4, Informative)
Please stop posting ChatGPT garbage in an effort to get us to somehow accept its training data. We can read the literature ourselves before reading its demented take on anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Reactionless" just means that it's pushing on something we can't see, can't understand, or haven't found yet.
I seem to recall that the EMDrive was found to be reacting against the Earth's magnetic field, but that could still be useful for satellite station-keeping instead of finite fuel. In the end, it doesn't really matter as long as it works in practice, so long as you haven't accidentally invented aorist rods, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Propellantless space propulsion systems, also known as reactionless drives, are theoretical propulsion systems that don't rely on the principle of action and reaction (Newton's third law) to generate thrust.
Can the term not also refer to space propulsion systems that do things like, for example, push or pull the craft against the magnetic field of a planet?
Re: Even ChatGPT smells BS (Score:2)
I'm hoping for the latter. GOOD LUCK!! No, Really! (Score:5, Insightful)
If it fails, scientists can rest easy that the laws of physics don’t need to be revised. If it succeeds, it will open the door to tremendous opportunities. Ultimately, it seems fair to say that everyone (pro or con) is excited to see what comes of it!
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, it seems fair to say that everyone (pro or con) is excited to see what comes of it!
Doesn't seem all that fair to me. I'm pretty sure most people with some background in physics are pretty relaxed about this, if they have bothered to take any note at all beyond shrugging it off as the latest miracle drive.
Re: (Score:2)
> the latest miracle drive
One rises to the level of /. consciousness every couple of years.
Remember that one that was basically a penny on top of a stack of piezos?
Hell, at least that one had experimental evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but it's not clear to me that it won't work...or that it will.
The arguments that it will work rely on math that I can't follow, but this doesn't prove that it's wrong.
FWIW, I give this a low probability, but think it's worth testing as long as the tests are cheap enough. SpaceX has reduced the launch costs enough that it's probably cheap enough.
As for respected scientists who dismiss it out of hand, I remember Clarke's first and second laws.
Re: (Score:2)
The arguments that it will work rely on math that I can't follow"
No different for me, I'm only a humble engineer. But by virtue of that I have at least an understanding of how the world of scientific discovery operates, and what the odds are of physics -or our entire understanding how the world works- actually being upended here, or at least of it having to be substantially shaken in its very fundamentals. They're low; very, very low. That's not to say that their attempt at a verification in space has no merit- quite the contrary, the more data the better, as long as the
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not fair to the fools who got hoodwinked paying for it. But it's not the first time money was put into something that obviously won't work.
Well, then they can get back to the perpetual motion area of Youtube, and continue complaining how Big Electricity murdered Tesla, as he was on the verge of tapping into universal limitless power.
Won't someone think of cold fusion? And why aren't people just using Astral projection and manifestation?
Re: (Score:3)
If it fails, scientists can rest easy that the laws of physics donâ(TM)t need to be revised. If it succeeds, it will open the door to tremendous opportunities. Ultimately, it seems fair to say that everyone (pro or con) is excited to see what comes of it!
You could say exactly the same about a claimed perpetual motion machine too. No one's excited about the latest perpetual motion machine because we all know they're bullshit.
Oh and speaking of perpetual motion: given a working reactionless thruster, you
Re: (Score:2)
You could say exactly the same about a claimed perpetual motion machine too. No one's excited about the latest perpetual motion machine because we all know they're bullshit.
Not (sure whether they are) the same thing.
The physics around perpetual motion machines -- phaenomenological thermodynamics -- is essentially settled.
The physics around spacetime, general relativity and quantum mechanics, is not. There are many things we don't understand. Yes, there are many theories, but we don't know where experiments will take us. Come to think of it, theories of "dark matter" and "dark energy" sound pretty egregious, and the fact that details need to be adjusted every time there is a ne
Re: (Score:2)
*care to explain how?
Re: (Score:2)
> The physics around spacetime... ... is not the issue here. The issue here is conservation of momentum.
We know beyond any shadow of a doubt, how did you put it, ah yes, it "is essentially settled", that momentum is conserved. It is conserved to the limit of our most fiendish experiments (I believe 10^26 currently) and is also conserved to our ability to explore the universe (it's clearly conserved in the most distance quasars). It is also the basic expectation given the universe is a sphere, to say othe
Re: (Score:2)
We know beyond any shadow of a doubt, [...] that momentum is conserved.
The very definition of momentum depends on the definition of inertial mass, and that's where the physics this guy proposes attacks. In a way, it's because momentum is conserved that he gets his propellant-less acceleration: the lighter (in terms of inertia) the payload becomes, the faster it goes, in order to keep the momentum conserved.
How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free?
As far as I understand, doesn't necessarily gain momentum, it gains speed by manipulating inertia.
(But don't fact check me on that, it's how I understand the explanations; I
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free? How does it manage to violate, or at least *appear* to violate, one of the longest understood and best measured-to-be-true conservation rules that underlies all of physics?
I await your explanation.
Do you have a time machine where you went into the future and came back to tell us that the experiment worked? Seems that you are the one who can explain how this experiment was a total success.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how does this device violate that, or in the opposite case, conserve it? How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free?
Don't get me wrong - I'm extremely skeptical about this experiment - but how is it gaining momentum "for free" since it still requires energy to move it? This may still be violating the laws of physics, but I don't quite see how it's the same as perpetual motion.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how does this device violate that, or in the opposite case, conserve it? How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free? How does it manage to violate, or at least *appear* to violate, one of the longest understood and best measured-to-be-true conservation rules that underlies all of physics?
What specifically is the basis of conservation law based objections? They are explicitly not claiming the device is reactionless so what is the issue?
Is there a conservation law that demands you can't do any better than a photon rocket? After all exactly that has been demonstrated in the real world by simply bouncing photons back and forth between two mirrors.
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it, theories of "dark matter" and "dark energy" sound pretty egregious, and the fact that details need to be adjusted every time there is a new observation concerning those is everything but trust inducing.
As a physicist, you know that they are just placeholders until we figure out what the heck is actually happening.
Re: (Score:2)
The physics around perpetual motion machines -- phaenomenological thermodynamics -- is essentially settled.
Curious, how do time crystals fit into that?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and speaking of perpetual motion: given a working reactionless thruster, you can create a perpetual motion machine. The former implies the latter, so claims of a reactionless thruster are mathematically no different from claims of perpetual motion. So... no, not excited.
Propellantless != reactionless.
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, am not excited to see what comes out of this waste of resources and time. Would you believe that someone preparing to launch their new alchemy machine into orbit was exciting?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be very interesting. The current alchemy machines are much too heavy to launch. (You didn't think transmuting elements was still impossible did you?)
Re: (Score:2)
> The current alchemy machines are much too heavy to launch.
Are you referring to the fact that Newton was an Alchemist?
All he did is invent calculus and physics, so we could call rockets alchemy machines ... I guess.
I assume you're not upset about some guy who's testing out tweaks to Newton's laws. Newton wouldn't mind the experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you believe that someone preparing to launch their new alchemy machine into orbit was exciting?
Alchemy machine? You mean a nuclear reactor?
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem here is in your head.
Propellant-less thrusters would violate the law of conservation of momentum. Such a violation should be demonstrated on Earth before bothering to launch it into space. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Do you have a link to their results?
Re: (Score:2)
Propellant-less thrusters would violate the law of conservation of momentum.
There are numerous proven ways of achieving thrust without propellant such as altering shape to convert a gravitational gradient into thrust.
Such a violation should be demonstrated on Earth before bothering to launch it into space.
They have a different perspective.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Do you have a link to their results?
What can possibly be more extraordinary than a real world demonstration on orbit?
Re: (Score:2)
> proven ways of achieving thrust without propellant such as altering shape to convert a gravitational gradient into thrust
A gravitational gradient does not product thrust, at least not in the 4-universe in which we live.
> They have a different perspective.
Of course, their perspective is not "free momentum", but "free money!"
> What can possibly be more extraordinary than a real world demonstration on orbit?
One in a vacuum chamber on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
A gravitational gradient does not product thrust, at least not in the 4-universe in which we live.
https://sci-hub.se/https://www... [sci-hub.se]
One in a vacuum chamber on Earth.
Not terribly convincing in my view given the complexity of such experiments and the opportunity for error as demonstrated repeatedly with EM.Drive. If you have something in space that is adding energy to its orbit there is no arguing it didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
> Normal rockets...
Here we go...
> Photons have momentum. Photons are not matter.
> it will generate thrust without using "propellant".
No, it will generate thrust without *rocket propellant*. You have conflated the terms to claim a point your own words disprove.
You said it right at the top, "normal rockets". Do you define a photon-propelled spaceship as a "normal rocket"?
Who said that "rocket propellant" is the only sort of propellant?
No one, that's who.
Re:I'm hoping for the latter. GOOD LUCK!! No, Real (Score:4, Interesting)
Will this be a definitive test though?
The issue with their tests on Earth was that the vacuum was not perfect and so reaction with gasses in it could not be ruled out. Space isn't a perfect vacuum either, especially not Earth orbit where most satellites are.
I have a feeling that whatever the results are, there will be too many potential alternative explanations to say definitively if it works as advertised or not.
Re: (Score:2)
But, let me say that my expectations are that it will not work, but there will be quite a few ad-hoc excuses for it.
Re: (Score:2)
A drive that requires mass to be ejected from the spacecraft is much less interesting than one that only needs energy to work.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be careful making bets like that. Right now you might have people looking to hire champion cliff-divers to stand in for them.
I hate to rain on the Slashdot physicists' parade (Score:5, Informative)
but it is in fact possible to make a propellant-less satellite without violating the laws of physics. The keyword here is satellite - and specifically Earth's satellite.
You need propellant to create a reaction force if you have nothing to push against. Around the Earth, you can use the Earth's magnetic field to "push against the Earth" so-to-speak.
In fact, it's so not new that satellites already use this principle, and have been for a long time. It's called a Magnetic torquer [wikipedia.org]. It's used to control a satellite's attitude without propellant, but there's no reason why it couldn't be used for linear propulsion.
Re: (Score:2)
This is daft: you may as well call wheels on a car "propellantless thrusters" then.
This is about a thruster without reaction mass. The Earth definitely qualifies as a reaction mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wheels on a car are propellantless thrusters.
Re: (Score:2)
Airplanes are a different story though. Airplane engines effectively use air as reaction mass that they opportunistically gather and eject on the fly. Heck, even their exhaust contributes a bit there.
I
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, since E = mc^2 that's not a massless propulsion system. It's just that there isn't vey *much* mass. It's using p = mv, where v == c and m == E/c^2.
OTOH, that *is* a perfectly valid approach. But stay out of the exhaust. The problem with the photon drive is that it consumes a lot of energy and there are heat losses. At currently reasonable levels of power a light sail is probably a better approach.
That said, if the proposed approach works, we could have a real reactionless drive. It's true that i
Propellant-less Not a Problem (Score:2)
but it is in fact possible to make a propellant-less satellite without violating the laws of physics. The keyword here is satellite - and specifically Earth's satellite.
Even out in deep space, you can easily build a propellant-less EM drive system if you have power: just shoot a laser out of the back of your spacecraft and you will have thrust. The problem is that this only generates a tiny amount of thrust.
Put it inside a box! (Score:5, Funny)
This is the the only way to ensure to both fails and succeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, another poster above mentioned homepathy - I have several Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs that I would like to invest in your homepathic star-dirve, please contact me.
I'll make a prediction right now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a first!!!11 (Score:2)
This will be the first perpetual motion machine in space! Normally perpetual motion machines exist only in patent filings and in almost functional condition in the back yards of crackpots.
Dumb way to test it (Score:2)
The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass has been
Wake me when it fails. (Score:2)
Which it will, although I'd love it to actually work.
Already have electric propulsion for sattelites (Score:2)
propellantless propulsion does exist (Score:2)
The earth's got a magnetic field. You can use electricity to push against it without sending out any propellant. Googling yields https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.... [aiaa.org] . The earth's magnetic field is pretty weak so this needs a lot of space. They were using km-long tethers. I didn't read this quantum-stuff article and suspect it's not supposed to be this. I'm guessing it either doesn't work or is magnetic propulsion in disguise. Solar sails are another real propellantless propulsion, working off sunlight a
The website has a smell to it (Score:2)
The website has a lot of pictures that mean nothing, a lot of "forward looking statements" presented as if they are past accomplishments, and a bunch of talk that says nothing in particular.
It would sure be interesting if a disinterested 3rd party consisting of actual physicists found that it works, but I won't be holding my breath.
Meanwhile, there are a number of proposals for propellant-less satellite thrusters reacting against Earth's magnetic field and requiring no new physics. Those still leave enginee
the perils of electric propulsion drives (Score:2)
Kirk: Scotty, I need propulsion NOW.
Engineer: I'm changin' the batteries right now sir. There's some rabbit with a drum gettin' in the way.
Spock: Star Fleet never should have approved that contract with IVO.
Kirk: facepalms
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LOL good times (Score:4, Informative)
The link you posted from Alleghany Highlands Economic Development Corporation (really?, is this a joke?) had nothing to do with your claim about some prior failed technology. It was just a reposting, of a reposting (from news.yahoo.com) of an article from Globe News Wire???
So, yeah you gonna need to work on those citations.
Re: (Score:3)
There is huge difference between wireless power transmission which is based on proven physics principles and this drive based on some theory that is beyond experimentally proven principles and was created to explain something that already has found different explanation.
Sure they can test it but my bet is that they will fail.
Re: (Score:2)
There is huge difference between wireless power transmission which is based on proven physics principles and this drive based on some theory that is beyond experimentally proven principles and was created to explain something that already has found different explanation.
Sure they can test it but my bet is that they will fail.
I don't think they are talking about the utterly simple "wireless" power transmission, which is merely eliminating a cable and turning the charg(er) and charg(ee) into two halves of a transformer and rely on induction.
This is Nikola Tesla level, Electrify the World! stuff. Ideas that require conspiracy theories as a big part of how they work. Even if there was some sort of magick electrical power that is placed everywhere, the first thing that would happen is we'd all be electrocuted.
Now this likewise
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, just like the bullshit "propellantless" system, their "wireless power" system runs on pure, unadulterated bullshit: "Without an electrical engineering degree Mansell says "Praise the Lord," he went about experimenting without being encumbered by the "rules"
He should start working on cold fusion next.
Re:LOL good times (Score:4)
For the love of whomever, please turn off your damn "smart" quotes. Seriously, this isn't a new problem or solution.
Re:LOL good times (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro-tip: Your high school physics class didn't teach you physics,
Well, it didn't seem to teach you much of anything.
Addition tip, FREE: If it doesn't have propellant, it isn't a rocket, and none of the rocket formulas matter.
I love this! Your lack of understanding of the problems has made you invent a wildly strange straw man argument against this for you to fearlessly chop down. The real problem is reactionless thrust ends up being equivalent to a perpetual motion machine because the things like energy and momentum are not conserved [wikipedia.org]. So what you're basically saying is:
Yeah, no shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is reactionless thrust ends up being equivalent to a perpetual motion machine because the things like energy and momentum are not conserved
Ahem... not sure about that. Noether's stuff is all based on the equivalence principle: remember that "m" in "F=ma"? We're just silently putting in a "heavy mass m", but since we're talking about inertia, we should put in an "inertial mass m" -- which we always just kind-of assumed were equivalent, but for which there is no actual law of physics, model, theory, or in fact necessity to be the case.
What the QI-stuff is claiming is precisely that this is not the case, and they have a clear model of where it di
General Relativity is a clear answer to that. (Score:2)
GM tells us that there is only inertial mass - the force we see as gravity is just inertia as objects are forced to take straight paths through curved spacetime (or curved paths through spacetime - it's a matter of perspective, after all.)
That's Special Relativity, of course (Score:2)
I do wish there was a edit feature in Slashdot, but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
You never know, General Motors might agree with Special Relativity. :)
Seriously, you make a very good point.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember though that GR originated in one man's head. There is no reason why it should be a be all end all of what we call gravity. The experiements have confirmed that GR is not wrong, but -- obviously -- not that it is complete, as with all other theories.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but it is good to keep an open mind.
Re:LOL good times (Score:5, Informative)
> Noether's stuff is all based on the equivalence principle
Noether's most famous contribution is the First Theorem, which has nothing to do with the equivalence principle. It has to do with symmetry and conservation laws and symmetry. The second law has to do with integrating actions in such a symmetry setup, which sort-of touches on this, but really says nothing about it one way or another.
> "inertial mass m" -- which we always just kind-of assumed were equivalent, but for which there is no actual law of physics, model, theory
The unexplained difference between inertial and gravitation mass was the entire basis for what became General Relatively. It was published in 1915, so you have no excuse for not being aware of this. It's not like one can't find explanations filling the first page of google or something:
https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle
> What the QI-stuff is claiming is precisely that this is not the case
The entire concept is based on a single measurement, the Pioneer anomaly.
Unfortunately for McCulloch, the Pioneer anomaly was fully explained by conventional physics, specifically the asymmetric thermal radiation due to the shape of the system and especially the parabolic reflector. With this explanation, from 2012, McCulloch's theory's entire raison d'etra disappeared.
So there is no reason for this to exist, literally centuries worth of experimental evidence that says it doesn't, yet here we are.
> crackpots is not one of them
Let me demonstrate. From the original paper:
"Here, Milgrom’s long-wavelength cutoff idea is modified so that we assume that only wavelengths of the Unruh radiation that fit exactly into twice the Hubble distance."
The Hubble distance (or more commonly, length) is effectively a calculation of the size of the visible universe. But we need to remember that the size of the "actual universe" has no relationship to what is visible. There is no "end" at that distance, the universe is continuous. An observer in a different galaxy will have some other portion of the universe within that measure.
We understand quantization. It occurs when a periodic function has physical limits imposed. This has nothing to do with "quantum mechanics", it can be seen in water waves in a trough or guitar strings on a fret. And yes, since there is a periodic nature to H, quantized states arise in physical systems like atoms. But if you, say, remove an electron from that atom, the limit disappears and so do the quantized states.
So, what, exactly, is the physical limit being applied in this case? The Hubble length is *not* a physical limit. The original paper states it makes sense because it is a "Casimir-like effect", but of course, the Casimir effect exists between two large sheets of metal, which provides a very real limit.
And he also introduces a factor of 2 to make the values work, stating that we should simply expect this to fit into a space twice this (non-physical) limit. Why? Quantization almost always results in a 1/2 lambda state, what is the reason what would not exist here? No explanation is offered, other than, of course, the one I offer which is that the math wouldn't work otherwise so he simply states that it must be.
Basically, he puts together a bunch of unrelated things such that there small constants on top (like hbar) and large ones on the bottom (like c) and concludes, "look a small number! It must be the same small number as the pioneer problem!", line (12).
It's numerology. And it doesn't exist. And anyone capable of posting on /, should be able to figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
"inertial mass m" -- which we always just kind-of assumed were equivalent, but for which there is no actual law of physics, model, theory
The unexplained difference between inertial and gravitation mass was the entire basis for what became General Relatively. It was published in 1915, so you have no excuse for not being aware of this. It's not like one can't find explanations filling the first page of google or something:
You seem knowledgeable. Please correct me if I'm wrong, my knowledge of GR is limited (not my field -- though always on my to-do list, but such a long list, so little time...). Anyway: as I understood it, in this regard, GR is not "complete". Einstein himself was bothered that he could never explain Mach's paradox [wikipedia.org] within GR. As such, the fact that gravity is just a manifestation of inertia is essentially an underpinning, an assumption -- interpretation, if you will, of General Relativity, not something that
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed that they're putting it to the test, which is good. However, it's valid to make a prediction as to the result.
Re: (Score:2)
That's backwards. Assuming the equivalence principle leads to GR, not the other way around. Since GR works so well, it supports the idea that the equivalence principle is a symmetry the universe observes.
I don't think Mach's conjecture (it's not a paradox) really bothered Einstein. It's nicely in the spirit of both relativity and the equivalence principle.
None of which is really all that relevant to the present story. Momentum and energy aren't conserved because of the equivalence principle, they're conserv
Re: (Score:2)
It's nicely in the spirit of both relativity and the equivalence principle.
But it's not solvable within GR. (Depends which formulation you take, but I like the one with the two rotating spheres best -- how do you tell which one is "truly" rotating, and with respect to what? From GR's point of view there's no difference between one or the other rotating, or both rotating with half the speed. There is no "absolute" rest frame.)
Re: (Score:2)
> You seem knowledgeable
Oh god no. A dilettante at best.
But as you have similar interests, go on Abebooks and buy a copy of this:
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177793/gravitation
Don't expect to be able to do the math, but that's the thing, you don't have to be able to. The *physics*, the underlying concepts, are well explained.
Plus, you'll get to have people call you knowledgeable on /. :-)
> As such, the fact that gravity is just a manifestation of inertia
It is not.
Gravity is a man
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult for me to argue because I don't have a solid understanding of GR, but there are many things in your post that contradict what I do know.
For instance this:
directly comprehend the four dimensions we live in
I'm not exactly sure that we actually live in 4 dimensions. The c*t from GR is, to me, just a math trick. Yes, it does have the "correct" dimensionality (i.e. meters as unit), but there's nothing - no higher principle, nothing else, to actually motivate the fact that we're treading it as equal to the other three. We just... sort of "do", and
Data (Score:2)
They've done their homework, correlated their share of observations of astrophysical phenomena
Ask them about the bullet cluster. I'd like to see their explanation for why there is a gravitational field bending light where there is no visible matter.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'd like to see their explanation for why there is a gravitational field bending light where there is no visible matter.
There are many candidates for invisible matter. If you have proof of any make it known and apply for your Nobel Prize.
Quantum Inertia has no Dark Matter (Score:2)
There are many candidates for invisible matter.
Yes, but these are all Dark Matter models. Quantum inertia relies on there being no Dark Matter and instead explains the rotation curves of galaxies by modifying Newtonian dynamics. The problem with that approach is that it fails to explain phenomena like the Bullet Cluster where there is evidence of a gravitational field where there is no visible matter. Hence the reason I would like to see how they explain a phenomenon we have already observed.
TROLLOLOLO! (Score:2)
Originally Posted by New York Times editorial from January 13, 1920
That Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react - to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
Re: (Score:2)
> reactionless thrust ends up being equivalent to a perpetual motion machine because the things like energy and momentum are not conserved
The combination is conserved. Like the Casimir Effect.
Re:LOL good times (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember all the slashdot shouts of, "that's impwossssuble!!!" when this technology was first announced.
Just because someone announced he's going to launch into space something that didn't work on earth doesn't mean it works or that something thought impossible is now possible.
Pro-tip: Your high school physics class didn't teach you physics, it was just college prep.
Absolutely. Which is why I recall the Slashdot story as well as the follow-ups being full of links to actual physicists discussing theory who among other things built "working" prototypes which showed they didn't actually work at all.
You on the other hand appear to have learnt everything you know about physics in theology class.
Re: LOL good times (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>because they couldn't replicate it doesn't mean the theory isn't sound
Results that disappear when other people look carefully were probably fake in the first place, whether by delusion or deliberate fraud doesn't really matter.
If there was anything to the 'microwave in an oddly shaped metal container' theory, something would have been measured long ago. It was just another guy with a nutty theory seeing confirming data in random noise, and a lot of people getting excited about it regardless.
Re: Didn't this already fail? (Score:2)
Re:Didn't this already fail? (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been several reactionless thruster ideas proposed over the last few decades, and none of them have worked out.
The most recent one to gain press attention was the EmDrive, a microwave resonator shaped like a truncated cone. The results were initially replicated by several independent labs in the US, UK, China, and Germany. After further experiments, Martin Tajmar working in a German lab was able to demonstrate the thrust measured in the other high vacuum tests were measurement errors caused by thermal effects on their torsion balance and magnetic effects from how power was being transmitted into the balance. I'm not aware of any new reproductions with these factors taken into account.
Regrettably Mr. Sawyer's discovery did not lead to new physics, it led to new metrology instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I rate the odds of this working to be very poor. But the payoff it is does could be quite high. So cheap enough tests seem a good idea. (I haven't run across any actual claims that his math is wrong.)
Re: (Score:2)
I've read Mr. Mcculloch's book, but I'm not competent to judge the quality of his hypothesis. It's an exciting time. I hope we're able to get some form of practical, defined as transit to another star within a few human lifetimes, interstellar transportation figured out before we're superseded by the AIs. Maybe they'll bring us along as pets.
Re: (Score:2)
If that wasn't enough the NEW THEORY OF INERTIA should have been a giveaway.
There is no proven theory of intertia that I know of, new, old or otherwise.
The only thing I know of is "trust me, heavy mass equals inert mass, we've checked and it pans out". But while there is a theory of heavy mass (Higgs n'stuff), there is none for the inertia. Just the claim of the equivalence principle, which follows from... nothing but a gut feeling. No reason why this should necessarily be the case, no reason of whether or not it's valid at all energy and distance scales. Nada. Zip.
So, count me in.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no proven theory of intertia that I know of, new, old or otherwise
General Relativity.
> The only thing I know of is "trust me, heavy mass equals inert mass, we've checked and it pans out".
General Relativity.
> while there is a theory of heavy mass (Higgs n'stuff)
Higgs is concerned only with very light masses, and only one part of it. Particles have mass even without the Higgs mechanism, just less of it.
Or perhaps by "heavy mass" you mean "inertial mass"?
If so... General Relativity.
> I a
Re: (Score:2)
General Relativity.
Consider this: You're standing on a big ball of jelly -- one of only two in the entire universe. The other ball of jelly is far enough away that it doesn't crash into yours, but close enough for you to observe it. Now your ball of jelly starts spinning around the common axis of the two. You look "up" to the other ball, and what you can actually see is the ball spinning in the opposite direction. Inertia dictates that the other ball of jelly would get "thicker" at its equator and flatter at its poles -- its
Re: (Score:2)
"there's no other point of reference to fix your observations to"
You would not need any external observations to determine if your ball was rotating or not, in the same was as a physicist inside one of the funfair rides with a rotating cylinder (and no view of the outside) could determine the cylinder was rotating and the axis of the rotation, by investigating the motion of objects inside the cylinder, so could one on the surface of the ball of jelly, determine if they were rotating or not, and on what axis
Re: (Score:2)
s/same was/same way/g
Re: (Score:2)
You would not need any external observations to determine if your ball was rotating or not
Why not? How would you determine that it's your ball that's rotating?
in the same was as a physicist inside one of the funfair rides with a rotating cylinder (and no view of the outside) could determine the cylinder was rotating and the axis of the rotation, by investigating the motion of objects inside the cylinder, so could one on the surface of the ball of jelly, determine if they were rotating or not, and on what axis.
Rotating with respect to what, when the only other thing in existence that you could relate it to is the other sphere?
I think no, its not, you may be falling for the "its all relative man" view of the subject.
Please, enlighten me.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why not? How would you determine that it's your ball that's rotating?"
You would observe what forces are experience by objects on different point on the surface of the ball.
"Rotating with respect to what"
It doesn't matter with respect to anything, as I suggested by the equivalence to being inside a rotating cylinder.
In your system, the initial observation will make it seem as if the other ball was rotating, but further observation on the ball would show that there was a rotation taking place on the ball you
Re: (Score:2)
> Consider this: You're standing on a big ball of jelly -- one of only two in the entire universe
Ok, with you so far.
> Now your ball of jelly starts spinning around the common axis of the two
Got it.
> Inertia dictates that the other ball of jelly would get "thicker" at its equator and flatter at its poles
Does it?
Are you *sure*?
Have you actually tried this experiment in a universe consisting of only two blobs of jelly?
> I'm literally on the edge of my seat to see how you explain this.
I won't even
Re: (Score:2)
Does it? Are you *sure*? Have you actually tried this experiment in a universe consisting of only two blobs of jelly?
It doesn't matter whether it does. It's a Gedankenexperiment designed to smoke out misconceptions. What does matter is that, according to our understanding of inertia, that's what should happen -- which is obviously bollocks, this most likely isn't what will happen.
The important part is: what do you think would happen, and why? And in particular: how does this go with GR?
I was not stating that GR explains inertia. I was saying that GR explains "inert mass".
Where's the difference? "Inert mass" is "what has inertia."
GR does explain that, and it has been tested, and it does.
This is true at least if one is charitable and assumes by "heavy mass" you mean gravitational mass, and by "inert mass" you mean inertial mass. Because if you don't, then I have no clue what you are talking about, and no one else would either.
Yes, that's what I mean, and no, I don't see that GR explains that. GR just kin
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no proven theory of intertia that I know of, new, old or otherwise
General Relativity.
Not exactly. General Relativity takes the existence of inertia as an input assumption: it says that in its own frame of reference, every object travels on a geodesic unless acted on by a force, which turns out to reduce to Newton's law of motion in uncurved spacetime. It doesn't really say "why" this should be so, it's just the law of motion. So it's not a theory of inertia per se, it's a theory of motion that assumes inertia.
> The only thing I know of is "trust me, heavy mass equals inert mass, we've checked and it pans out".
General Relativity.
...
> just testable at this point
General Relativity. Tested all the time.
Yes... and no. Many features of GR have been tested, but not all. In general, it