> But I don't think you should state that the standard model is evidence of that emdrive cannot work I specifically said that reactionless drives contradict co

> But I don't think you should state that the standard model is evidence of that emdrive cannot work I specifically said that reactionless drives contradict conservation of momentum. This is a direct result of all useful physical theories. > what if your assumption is wrong? What if emdrive don't violate it? Believe it or not, but I've answered this question before. If EmDrive doesn't violate conservation of momentum, then according to standard model it cannot produce more thrust than a photon drive, which makes EmDrive utterly useless. > My point is, rather focus your energy on building your own version [...] My own version: EmDrive inventor is a crackpot, which can be deduced from papers he writes and statements he makes. I'm not obliged to explain every single crackpot claim. The burden of proof is on the side making extraordinary claims. > [...] than throwing out statements which also have no proof Please quote specific statements rather than making broad accusation of baseless speech. I'm tired of dissecting every single one of your sentences.