4 ms·

In case you missed it, the theory behind the EM Drive is also being used to explain galaxy rotation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313580454_Low-acc

In case you missed it, the theory behind the EM Drive is also being used to explain galaxy rotation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313580454_Low-acceleration_dwarf_galaxies_as_tests_of_quantised_inertia https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313580454_Low-accel...

fenollp 10y ago
I don't know anything about this field but the language seems sound to me. Is there a consensus on this interpretation v. "just adding more dark matter"?
- Fjolsvith 10y ago
  It is unfortunate that the theory of Dark Matter doesn't have a cute parlor trick like the EM Drive.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- wfunction 10y ago
  > Is there a consensus on this interpretation v. "just adding more dark matter"? This reminded me of https://xkcd.com/1758/ https://xkcd.com/1758/
the6threplicant 10y ago
Why is it that EM advocates always seem to be dark matter-deniers? There's observational evidence for DM, a lot more than for the EM drive.
- phs318u 10y ago
  > There's observational evidence for DM Um. Isn't that a contradiction in terms? By definition, DM is stuff whose existence is inferred by observations that contradict what we previously presumed to know. Hence postulate the existence of DM to close the gap between what we observe and what we "know".
  - flukus 10y ago
    There's observational evidence of something. Dark Matter is just the place holder for the something.
FrozenVoid 10y ago
>Hubble-scale Casimir effect Isn't casimir effect very short range phenomenona? Seems like distances involved would reduce it to negligible levels compared with huge EM fields. Its like claiming weak nuclear force is relevant at galactic distances because "all the atoms add up". http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
leni536 10y ago
I see no connection to the EM drive. The paper you mentioned suggests an alternative inertia formula, however it doesn't break conservation of inertia as far as I can see. The "theory behind the EM drive" [1] is completely based on classical electrodynamics and therefore it's flawed. Classical electrodynamics conserves momentum and energy. It doesn't mean that the EM drive can't work though, it just means that this theory can't work. [1] I only found this: http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf Is this what you refer as the "theory behind the EM Drive"?
xupybd 10y ago
$200 bucks it doesn't pan out, what you say?

fenollp 10y ago

I don't know anything about this field but the language seems sound to me. Is there a consensus on this interpretation v. "just adding more dark matter"?

Fjolsvith 10y ago
It is unfortunate that the theory of Dark Matter doesn't have a cute parlor trick like the EM Drive.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
wfunction 10y ago
> Is there a consensus on this interpretation v. "just adding more dark matter"? This reminded me of https://xkcd.com/1758/ https://xkcd.com/1758/

the6threplicant 10y ago

Why is it that EM advocates always seem to be dark matter-deniers? There's observational evidence for DM, a lot more than for the EM drive.

phs318u 10y ago
> There's observational evidence for DM Um. Isn't that a contradiction in terms? By definition, DM is stuff whose existence is inferred by observations that contradict what we previously presumed to know. Hence postulate the existence of DM to close the gap between what we observe and what we "know".
- flukus 10y ago
  There's observational evidence of something. Dark Matter is just the place holder for the something.

FrozenVoid 10y ago

>Hubble-scale Casimir effect Isn't casimir effect very short range phenomenona? Seems like distances involved would reduce it to negligible levels compared with huge EM fields. Its like claiming weak nuclear force is relevant at galactic distances because "all the atoms add up". http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html

leni536 10y ago

I see no connection to the EM drive. The paper you mentioned suggests an alternative inertia formula, however it doesn't break conservation of inertia as far as I can see. The "theory behind the EM drive" [1] is completely based on classical electrodynamics and therefore it's flawed. Classical electrodynamics conserves momentum and energy. It doesn't mean that the EM drive can't work though, it just means that this theory can't work. [1] I only found this: http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf Is this what you refer as the "theory behind the EM Drive"?

xupybd 10y ago

$200 bucks it doesn't pan out, what you say?