N_las

The title of the thread and of the linked article is misleading. It suggests some sicentist have found evidence that the black hole in the center of the galaxy might be a wormhole. In reality (outside of gonzo journalism), the physicists have described a way to tell black holes apart from wormholes by observing orbiting matter. I would recommend everyone: Whenever you encounter a pice of science journalism, ignore it. Scroll over the page to find a link the the published paper. Read the abstract of the paper instead of the article. It is shorter and contains more information. A journalist often doesn't care about what the original paper says. He simply writes stuff that will lead many people to read the article. Here is the whole paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1883v1.pdf (And the paper isn't even peer reviewed. Everything in there could just be nonsense.)

Yes. 1 g antimatter would be an incredible amount of energy. But even that is far from currently possible: "Assuming a 100% conversion of antiprotons to antihydrogen, it would take 100 billion years to produce 1 gram antihydrogen" Every rocket gets lighter while burning its propellant. Nothing special there about antimatter rockets. There is no reason why all antimatter should be used at once. It should be possible to us it at a slow rate, to produce small g-forces. We can, and we did in 1799.

The ISP has the unit 'seconds', which is the same in imperial and metric. Using the exhaust velocity could work as well, but it may introduce confusion (metric 'm/s' vs. imperial 'quarter-fiddlesticks per second'

I am pretty sure its something like that. Mdrive: Big paper is good Nice of the company to give it to you for free.

The wave itself is called photon. Its not like there is an ocean of photons, and an em-wave is a wave on that ocean.

Both "papers" by Roger Shawyer are complete nonsense. He ignores the radiation pressure at the side walls of the cavity: http://imgur.com/be7Qyza It is interessting. The chinese team is aware of this error. Look in the paper at figure 1: http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf They even say in the text, that the whole surface has to be included in the calculations. But mysterioulsy, they don't show these calculations. They claim in the paper: "The theoretical calculations and experimental results for the direction of thrust were identical." But the never show these "theoretical calculations".

Sounds bad. What was the problem with the camera?

If you pump it down two pipes instead of one, you need twice the flow rate. If your pumps are already used at their limit, then you need two pumps. Or you have to build a pump twice as big. "Just put two pipes there and pump the liquid anywere for free" dosen't work.

200.000,00 200,000.00 200 000,00 200 000.00 200000.00 200000,00 On an international forum, those are all common ways to write numbers.

If you could save half the fuel by using asparagus (and that's unreasonably optimistic), and that would translate to half the thrust (which is unreasonably optimistic), that could maybe translate to half the cost for the engines (which is unreasonably optimistic). You now have to pay for all the extra pumps, plumbing, values, electronics, boosters, seperation mechanism, everything extra needed for asparagus staging (and everything redundant), for less than half the cost of your rocket engines. If you pay more, it isn't cheaper. Reliable: If one booster has a succes rate of 99.5%, then an asparagus configuration of 7 boosters (6 + center) will have a reliablility of approx. (99.5%)^7 = 96.6%. Using common components may be more reliable than using different components, but it can't be more reliable than using LESS components.

"The size of the rocket is irrelevant. The thrust needed is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." But seriously, if it's cheaper and more reliable, than the size and thrust doesn't matter. How is an asparagus staged rocket more reliable? How is an asparagus staged rocket cheaper? (Because one needs less fuel and smaller engines? puleeze...)

Nobody wants an expensive rocket. And simple rockets have low costs. Complex rockets are the expensive ones. The amount of fuel a rocket needs isn't a cost factor. If you propose a small asparagus launcher that can lift 20 tons into orbit, I simply propose a big two-stage rocket that can lift the same. Mine will be cheaper and more reliable.

If two launchers have the same dV, the fuel requirements are irrelevant. Only the costs and the reliability are relevant. If your launcher only takes half the fuel but has more seperation events, it is an inferior launcher.

Do the smaller tanks around the bigger one have there own enginges? If yes, why do you think it would be better than just having a normal second stage? And even if they haven't there own engines, you will have around 4 seperation events, opposed to just one. If the outcome is the same, then a second stage seems better than more complex alternatives.

That would be very good evidene, that your machine works. And it would help you to convince sceptic physicist to look at you machine. But I hope you understand, that people would not accept that as definitiv proof. For a sceptic, there is always the possibility that the video is faked, or that other effects are at work (like moving air in the room acting on the wires). Because of that, it is important to document everything of the experiment. I mean, if the analysis shows that your machine passes the pendulum test, document everything, from the used camera and laser-pointer, a detailed plan of your machine, usw... To make the analysis way easier: - be sure to get a laser pointer as bright as the one you borrowed last time. Automatic tracking wasn't possible with your first one. - if possible, try to use a very big paper, so that the dot does't leave it. If the dot leaves the paper, the tracking software has to be paused, and adjusted to the new background. This takes ages. If the dot doesn't leave the paper, it's possible to do all tracking automaticaly. - http://imgur.com/kgeehdD make those lines on your paper, and align it with the camera. If the paper is aligned like that, taking the perspective into account is much easier. As before, have always a bit of free swinging at the end of your video. Edit: To test if the machine behaves the same with gyros on or gyros off may be interesting for you personaly. But i want to emphasize that this has nothing to do with the pendulum test, and it convince no sceptic that your machine works. It would ony show, that the gyros do play a role in the swing movement, not that the gyros provide propellantless propulsion.

What do you mean, it is in one second anyway? And 'Power per Kilogramm' doesn't make any sense. What is interessting is 'Energy per Kilogram'. So the flywheel weights 13.34 kg and can store an energy of 300kJ. If we use up all this energy for the thruster in ONE SECOND, then we get a power of 300kW. If we assume the number of 300kW/1N for the thruster is correct, than we can have a force on your spaceship of 1N for 1 second. We don't know how heavy the spaceship is, but is has to be at least 13.34 kg heavy (because of the flywheel). So with a spacehipmass of ONLY 13.34 kg we get an acceleration of 0.075 m/s². But only for 1 second, because then all the energy in the flywheel is gone. So we have a dV of 0.075 m/s. Do you really think thats a big achievement? I would guess letting the astronauts spit out the rear window will be a better thruster. And if you use a metal with propertys that allow it to store double the energy and wheigth only half, then you will have a dV of 0.3 m/s ... wow... If you use double the amount of flywheels, you can create 2 Newton force on the ship, but you have double the mass, so we have the same acceleration and hence the same dV. And keep in mind, I assume the ship consists ONLY of the flywheel, because that is the absolute minimal mass the ship could have in the thought experiment. A real ship that weights several tons (let us say 10t) will have a dV of 0.0001 m/s. Let us do a comparision, a mentos in cola rocket can rise up to 10 ft. that is 3 meter. To rise 3m on earth, on need a dV of 7.7 m/s. A full cola bottle weigths 1.5 kg. An empty one weights around 50g. That gives an Isp of 0.23 seconds. If we put that bottle on a 10t spaceship, we have a dV of: 0.0003 m/s So: A cola bottle with mentos is better thruster technologie than a quantum thruster fueld by a flywheel. Edit: Granted, a quantum thruster fueled by batteries will be nearly as bad. And one fueled by solar cells or nuclear generators, or even fusion reactors will also by worse than a simple chemical thruster, or ion thruster with a small battery and small propellant tank. And by the way: All your talking about flywheels are better than batteries: From your calculation, we see that a flywheel can have a energy density of 300kJ/13.34kg, so 22 kJ/kg. Lition-ion batteries have an energy density of 360–950 kJ/kg. Babbling about 'flywheel energy is in a more useful form' doesn't make any sense. Can't you just admit that you are wrong? There is no reason to use a flywheel as energy storage on a spaceship, ever. And apart from that, a quantum thruster can't compare to ANY thruster in use today. Even a bottle cola with mentos is more useful for spaceship propulsion. You will see that admitting one is wrong isn't bad. It feels good and opens the door to new knowledge. You always behave as if you would have the ultimate knowledge and we are just simpleminded fools. Have you ever heard about the Dunning Kruger effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect I would guess you are still in high school, so don't think I am saying you are stupid. You just have to gain much more knowledge and experience. Edit Edit: Just for your info. Maybe you are not aware, why the people here want to use the formula E = 1/4 m v^2 for the energy of the flywheel, instead of E = 1/2 m v^2. If the v in the formula describes the velocity at the edge of the flywheel, the mass nearer at the center of the wheel has a lower velocity, right? From that, one can derive the factor 1/4 instead of 1/2.

Imagine we would live in 1900. If we now talk about the possiblility to call an ambulance with a hypothetical cellphone, than it is entirely besides the point if the battery for the phone is possible or not. Same here. Were are talking about the behavior of an AD in a certain situation. It has nothing to do with its exotic matter. It doesn't even matter if an AD will ever be possible to be build. You say someone here would claim impossible things? Were? Did someone say we can build an AD? Did someone say it is certain that we will build one in the future? At this point, the AD is simply a mathematical possibility in special and general relativity. Edit: Saying 'I don't deserve the hate' when everyone was civil and polite is pretty rude, in combination with calling others 'weak minded', 'idiots' and 'close minded'.

Please, everyone who works in an engineering job for more than a few months understands, that half the things you say are wrong. At the time I work in the r&d division at a company that builds micro-mechatronical implants. There is no chanche in hell one would make those by trial and error. There is so much money on the line, that millions are spend just to build models and documentations, until every aspect of the product and the manufacturing process is understood. Have you ever wondered, why most prototypes of products work? And weter exotic matter is possible is besides the point. The math of the behavior of the alcubierre drive is known, so one can caculate how it will do in a black hole. Nobody is 'claming to understand everything' in the process.

From my understanding, if you make the black hole bigger, the tidal forces at the event horizont are getting smaller. So they wouldn't be a problem in this thougth experiment.

The Energy in a flywheel will always be proportional to its mass. The energy density is a measure for stored energy per mass. So increasing the density of the flywheel by using depleted uranium doesn't effect the energy density at all. Using material with double the density allows for double the energy storage, but it will also double the mass. Hence the energy density isn't dependent on the density of the material.

Please, don't go easy on K^2 . I would love to see 'any mathematical proof' from you. Your comments are are the only reason I read this thread, they are most entertaining. So please, show us your calculations that demonstrate how using a quantum vaccum plasma thruster has advantages over any old ion thruster. I am really confused about that topic and would love to be enlightend by your insight.

I came around to measure the length of each 'hill' during the 'machine on' phase. The left (bottom) hills are 46±56 ms longer than the right (top) hills. Thats a diference of 0.8 ÃÆ’ from zero. So no evidence for any difference, if measured over the whole 'machine on' phase.

A few things. Measure the weight of your machine. On your rail system, if you turn the machine off, and then push it by hand and film how it moves, from it slowing down a bit, we can calculate the drag from the rail. If you now make a video of the machine turned on, moving on the rails, we can measure its median velocity. IF WE PRETEND, the forward movement was caused by real thrust, we can calculate the force of this thrust. With this force, we can calculate how far the mean deflection on the pendulum should be. If it turns out this deflection is in the range of mm, then we know you will never be able to confirm the thrust using the pendulum. If it turns out this deflection should be in the range of several cm, then we know we should have seen the effect by now on the pendulum, and therefore it isn't real.

Have you made an experiment, just doing cycles continiously? Because: In all your experiments, you try to coincide the cycle frequency with the swing frequency in the right why, to generate higher or lower swings. But nobody is really interested in that. Pushing a swing higher is nice and all, but ultimately has nothing to do with gyroscopic propulsion. If you machine could produce thrust, simply doing cycles continioulsy will pass the pendulum test.

I can check that, but propably not before wednesday. I am convinced such a movement pattern would be impossible to generate. But if you can generate it, it will have a very good change of passing the pendulum test.