Cannae/EmDrive

[Frozen_Heart]

And to get back to the T-Rex: yeah, having a T-Rex around sounds cool, right¿ Until you realize that it is hungry and goes on a rampage...

Things that sound "cool" can have dire consequences, and this is true for both a T-Rex in New York and an actually working EM-Drive as advertised.

Not building something because it could be dangerous does not lead to progress.

Pretty much every piece of tech ever made has the potential to cause harm if used with the will to do so.

[ZetaX]

AN EM-Drive still requires power. And it won't provide much thrust with it. But a little bit of thrust can add up over long periods of time. I don't see why that's bad. That's good. Because anyone wanting to use of bad intentions would have to wait, and we would know pretty quickly.

That's not about the "bad intentions" but about what K^2 wrote. People here "hope" for this thing to be true, while it might possible mean that vacuum decay might happen very soon or whatever (making that up, as are most of the EM-drive explanations). Yeah, travel to the stars for the few days we and the stars have left

- - - Updated - - -

Not building something because it could be dangerous does not lead to progress.

Pretty much every piece of tech ever made has the potential to cause harm if used with the will to do so.

As I said above, this is not about progress, it is about this thing actually being true. Now read the T-Rex comparision again; having a T-Rex in New York would also mean progress, it's still a bad day.

[Frozen_Heart]

As I said above, this is not about progress, it is about this thing actually being true. Now read the T-Rex comparision again; having a T-Rex in New York would also mean progress, it's still a bad day.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your argument. How is a more efficient space thruster and a T-Rex related? I understand how a T-Rex eating people is bad but how does that relate to an EM drive.

And just making it clear. I don't believe that this EM drive is real either. I personally believe it will turn out to be an instrument error or something. I still want it to be real though.

[K^2]

So you're saying science is all about bias? It's on the table. If it's not, then scientists aren't doing the correct thing here.

Science is about systematic building of knowledge. Using existing knowledge is not bias. It's what science is all about. It never assumes existing knowledge to be infallible, but every observation reduced the odds of an error.

We cannot possibly explore every possibility. The only way to move forward is discounting the unlikely ones. You cannot prove beyond shadow of a doubt that water that's been sent in a vial made of pure sapphire to Mars and back when Earth and Mars are at their closest approach is not a cure for all known disease. Should we actually fund such an endeavor? Absolutely not.

Looking for ways that EM Drive might be violating conservation of momentum is a waste of time. It's like spending your entire pay check on lottery tickets. Sure, if you win, it's going to be all kinds of beneficial. But you aren't going to. Not in any likely scenario.

[ZetaX]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your argument. How is a more efficient space thruster and a T-Rex related? I understand how a T-Rex eating people is bad but how does that relate to an EM drive.

And just making it clear. I don't believe that this EM drive is real either. I personally believe it will turn out to be an instrument error or something. I still want it to be real though.

If the EM-Drive as proposed exists, then essentially a lot of things in our understanding of physics is off. In a way that really requires to ask "why haven't we observed this much earlier?".

This, like for the T-Rex, does not mean that it is impossible or wrong. But if it actually is a thing, then we have a lot of side-effects. I heard some claim that EM-drives operate on vaccum being false (in a rather strong way: it being "quite false"), i.e. vacuum decay being a thing that might happen anytime now (much earlier than most other predictions). The latter is close to "end of the universe", maybe not in a literal sense but for all life currently in it. I would prefer this not to happen...

The above is partly me rambling about consequences without putting too much thought into it (due to my lack of time and knowledge about this), based on something I saw in this thread a while back (which might also just be a completely unfounded claim). So take the above with a huge grain of salt. The argument is not meant to be an actual one, but to demonstrate why EM-drive could possible have dire consequences.

[Bill Phil]

Science is about systematic building of knowledge. Using existing knowledge is not bias. It's what science is all about. It never assumes existing knowledge to be infallible, but every observation reduced the odds of an error.

We cannot possibly explore every possibility. The only way to move forward is discounting the unlikely ones. You cannot prove beyond shadow of a doubt that water that's been sent in a vial made of pure sapphire to Mars and back when Earth and Mars are at their closest approach is not a cure for all known disease. Should we actually fund such an endeavor? Absolutely not.

Looking for ways that EM Drive might be violating conservation of momentum is a waste of time. It's like spending your entire pay check on lottery tickets. Sure, if you win, it's going to be all kinds of beneficial. But you aren't going to. Not in any likely scenario.

There's a difference between using existing knowledge, and pushing something off of the table. Using existing knowledge we can apply logic to think through things, and we can also estimate certain things. But using existing knowledge and assuming it's perfect is not the right way to go about doing things. Assuming it's perfect would lead to bias towards the existing knowledge, after all, scientists are only human and there's bound to be some bias there. But breaking the laws of physics as we understand them isn't off the table, because of the "as we understand them" part. Maybe we got something wrong. Sure, it's not very likely. But possible. And maybe it's not wrong, but just a little bit incorrect, like 99.99999% correct.

Exploring some possibilities leads to immediate ruling out of others. If it's only one of two things, and you disprove one, it has to be the other. And at this point you're getting into more than just science, but the whole 9 yards: money, politics, etc.

Looking for ways the EM Drive violates it may not be the answer, but looking for ways it follows it might be.

Science builds off of past knowledge knowing beforehand it is not complete. Knowing that it may be wrong. Knowing that past knowledge may not be entirely correct. Assuming that past knowledge is correct is adding a bias, maybe it's because the people were taught from the very beginning that it can't happen. But it is a possibility, no matter how small.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Now, the trick here is to eliminate the impossible. But impossible =/= improbable.

- - - Updated - - -

If the EM-Drive as proposed exists, then essentially a lot of things in our understanding of physics is off. In a way that really requires to ask "why haven't we observed this much earlier?".

Not per se... This could be a very specific affect occurring under very specific circumstances. This would mean that our understanding would be off only in these circumstances.

[crazyewok]

I think this is a mechanical or measuring error because there is little chance we have completely disproven a law of physics as basic as the conservation of momentum. I hope it's an error because rocketry is awesome, and this cheaty troll-physics-cone is lame.

Rocketry is also expensive, slow, prone to failure and very inefficient.

Its the limiting factor in space exploration.

If we dont move beyond rocketry then we wont move beyond simple tin cans in LEO and the most mankind will ever see is a simple return manned journey to mars if we are lucky.

Not saying EM drive is going to be that answer in fact its unlikely to solve the Earth to orbit problem.

Edited May 3, 2015 by crazyewok

[Frozen_Heart]

If the EM-Drive as proposed exists, then essentially a lot of things in our understanding of physics is off. In a way that really requires to ask "why haven't we observed this much earlier?".

This, like for the T-Rex, does not mean that it is impossible or wrong. But if it actually is a thing, then we have a lot of side-effects. I heard some claim that EM-drives operate on vaccum being false (in a rather strong way: it being "quite false"), i.e. vacuum decay being a thing that might happen anytime now (much earlier than most other predictions). The latter is close to "end of the universe", maybe not in a literal sense but for all life currently in it. I would prefer this not to happen...

The above is partly me rambling about consequences without putting too much thought into it (due to my lack of time and knowledge about this), based on something I saw in this thread a while back (which might also just be a completely unfounded claim). So take the above with a huge grain of salt. The argument is not meant to be an actual one, but to demonstrate why EM-drive could possible have dire consequences.

I'm not worried about finding out that our knowledge of how the universe works is incomplete. It would be arrogant to say that we now know everything about all its laws.

Yes it may mean that the universe is about to collapse but whether or not we investigate it won't change that. Its like saying that activating the hadron collider would generate a black hole and destroy the earth.

Looking for ways that EM Drive might be violating conservation of momentum is a waste of time. It's like spending your entire pay check on lottery tickets. Sure, if you win, it's going to be all kinds of beneficial. But you aren't going to. Not in any likely scenario.

We should still investigate it. If only to find out why we are getting these errors in the tests and to stop them happening in future. Its got about 20p funding so far so not exactly draining the countries resources.

[ZetaX]

I'm not worried about finding out that our knowledge of how the universe works is incomplete. It would be arrogant to say that we now know everything about all its laws.

Yes it may mean that the universe is about to collapse but whether or not we investigate it won't change that. Its like saying that activating the hadron collider would generate a black hole and destroy the earth.

Again: my argument is not about fact or reality, it is addressing those _hoping_ that this is true. "One should not wish for things one does not understand."

[Sean Mirrsen]

Again: my argument is not about fact or reality, it is addressing those _hoping_ that this is true. "One should not wish for things one does not understand."

Funny you should phrase it that way, because if we find out that it is true, we will at the same time gain understanding of it. Hoping that the EMDrive is real is a wish for the ability to understand more of the universe.

I, for one, have a theory of the universe that allows for such a thing to happen without implying any sort of instability, but I'm going to have rocks tossed at me here if I try to elaborate.

[Albert VDS]

What's all the fuss about vacuum decay? How is a tiny and low powered machine going to induce it?

If it could be created then wouldn't it already have happened in the universe, seeing as it's potentially infinite.

[ZetaX]

What's all the fuss about vacuum decay? How is a tiny and low powered machine going to induce it?

If it could be created then wouldn't it already have happened in the universe, seeing as it's potentially infinite.

Read properly. Nobody said it is going to induce it, but that the mechanism of the machine may make it more likely as an event overall. Also, read the part where I said "huge grain of salt".

[Bill Phil]

Again: my argument is not about fact or reality, it is addressing those _hoping_ that this is true. "One should not wish for things one does not understand."

Understand in what way? I understand it produces force. I don't understand how. I understand it draws power. Is that not enough understanding?

[sal_vager]

That it generates a force and consumes electrical power is all anyone here knows at this time, exactly how it works is not currently answerable.

[ZetaX]

Understand in what way? I understand it produces force. I don't understand how. I understand it draws power. Is that not enough understanding?

Consider the entire conversation please instead of just one line that answers a post answering a post answering a post ... !

This is a statement about the underlying mechanism.

[crazyewok]

Consider the entire conversation please instead of just one line that answers a post answering a post answering a post ... !

This is a statement about the underlying mechanism.

So because we don't understand it we should just stop research on it and bury it in some box in a warehouse and pretend it don't exist?

[ZetaX]

So because we don't understand it we should just stop research on it and bury it in some box in a warehouse and pretend it don't exist?

And another one who did not read the entire conversation (hint: I was adressing the _hope_ of people, not the science being done; as I already explicitely said; twice). I will now ignore all such posts because this is tedious and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[Bill Phil]

Consider the entire conversation please instead of just one line that answers a post answering a post answering a post ... !

This is a statement about the underlying mechanism.

Oh, excuse me for thinking that your neat little post was a summary of a fairly complicated and almost, well, un-understandable point you were making.

[sal_vager]

Guys, lets not start bickering please, this thread has been doing so well up to now.

[Bill Phil]

Guys, lets not start bickering please, this thread has been doing so well up to now.

I literally thought his post was a decent summary, short and concise, of what his point was. And I was having trouble understanding his point earlier. Not trying to argue, it's just the plain truth.

[Frozen_Heart]

I understand the point they're making. I don't agree with it but I get what they're saying.

[ZetaX]

Oh, excuse me for thinking that your neat little post was a summary of a fairly complicated and almost, well, un-understandable point you were making.

I just want that people read an entire conversation instead of quoteing a single line and then jumping to conclusions. I would say that the only things I demand are ones universally accepted as good habit:

- no quote-mining

- no jumping to conclusions without having heard/read the entire argument

- not expecting someone to repeat an argument everyone can check up for themselves.

If you find my writing un-understandable, then please elaborate how. But attributing things I cleary did not say or/and clarified in an earlier post already cannot lead to fruitful discourse.

Edit/ninja'd: sorry, no bickering intended.

[NFUN]

See? Frozen_Heart gets my point! Thanks for not being obtuse and missing the point, as the point is extremely clear.

[Bill Phil]

I just want that people read an entire conversation instead of quoteing a single line and then jumping to conclusions. I would say that the only things I demand are ones universally accepted as good habit:

- no quote-mining

- no jumping to conclusions without having heard/read the entire argument

- not expecting someone to repeat an argument everyone can check up for themselves.

If you find my writing un-understandable, then please elaborate how. But attributing things I cleary did not say or/and clarified in an earlier post already cannot lead to fruitful discourse.

Edit/ninja'd: sorry, no bickering intended.

I wasn't quote mining. I saw your post and thought "Oh, that was his point!"

I didn't jump to conclusions, since I thought that was your point.

I don't understand that third one.

Is English not your first language? It is very difficult... Even for those who have it as their first language. You're using some strange wording, such as:

"I just want that people read"

Which is strange. It would read better as:

"I just want people to read"

I guess it's just me, but when words are thrown together in certain ways it just becomes a mess in my brain.

[Scotius]

Guys, you are starting to derail this thread again. Please, stop before you summon one of moderators wrath down on it. Lets keep things civil for couple of months more - until we hear reports from other teams working on confirming or debunking Emdrive.