5 ms·

I'm sorry -- it's much, much more likely that this guy is wildly wrong than him actually finding 1G reactionless engine thrust. It's bad science to outright dec

I'm sorry -- it's much, much more likely that this guy is wildly wrong than him actually finding 1G reactionless engine thrust. It's bad science to outright declare his stuff to be impossible, but it's not bad science to say that I'm not going to spend time on it until he has demos that are being reproduced by others. Also, I hope he's wrong. Reactionless drives in space are potential civilization destroyers.

moffkalast 2y ago
I mean he claims 40 grams of thrust, that should be so trivial to demonstrate. I'm really surprised there's no video of it in action.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  In the video from the conference he does say he has a video. But it was part of a conference and they moved to next speaker. He does say he has a working model and video. Just isn't in this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJjPi7uZ2OI&t=3696s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJjPi7uZ2OI&t=3696s
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    Right. The video goes to another school, you wouldn't know it. If he had something concrete he'd lead with it rather than make himself look like raving madman. He's talking about the Bob Lazar ufo at some point ffs.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Pretty sure the references to Bob Lazar were in jest.
tired_star_nrg 2y ago
In what way are they potential civilization destroyers?
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Dark Forest?
  - WithinReason 2y ago
    To explain: That book had a civilisation ending kinetic weapon
  - gf3 2y ago
    [dead]
- bragr 2y ago
  Reactionless drives allow for fairly trivial civilization ending kinetic weapons.
  - thrill 2y ago
    So does any other source of thrust.
    - NegativeK 2y ago
      Energy in space is nearly free, due to solar. The rocket equation makes reaction mass incredibly expensive. If you get rid of the reaction mass requirement, accelerating a superheavy object to a horrendous velocity takes time instead of a steady stream of resources. Here's more from someone with way more citations than me: https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdrive.php https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdr...
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        If this becomes widespread we will just Iron Dome the whole Earth. But it's worth noting that we could have already ended civilization but haven't. And the people in charge of not having done so are pretty stupid in other areas, so there's that.
sgt101 2y ago
agree it's likely nonsense, but really interested... why are reactionless drives in space civilization destroyers? (I write a bit of science fiction as a hobby and I'm wondering about a story!)
- Filligree 2y ago
  Kinetic energy equals velocity squared times mass. Incidentally, that is another reason this won’t work: It violates conservation of energy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    How does it violate conservation of energy. If you convert a stored battery charge, to a thrust? EV Cars aren't violating anything. Nothing is saying the thrust is producing more energy than stored in the battery.
    - bewaretheirs 2y ago
      Cars (whether powered by electricity, gasoline, or whatever) push against the road, and the amount of force (and thus energy) required as speed relative to the road increases. But in space, we don't have roads. Rockets push against their reaction mass. What is a hypothetical drive with no reaction mass pushing on?
      - adrian_b 2y ago
        While their description claims that there is no reaction mass pushing on, this does not mean that it is the correct explanation if their device would work. The device might not work far from the Earth, but only in the neighbourhood of other bodies, due to some kind of interaction with them. Moreover, while around the beginning of the 20th century it has become fashionable to rebrand what was called previously "aether" as "vacuum", this change of name has been just a useless cosmetic change. The mathematical description of vacuum has remained the same as that of the aether as conceived by Maxwell and the other physicists who opposed the theories based on action at a distance, i.e. the vacuum is something that mediates the interaction between bodies. Regardless whether it is called aether, vacuum or electromagnetic field, in most theories it is endowed with properties like energy and momentum. So it could happen that there would be a way for a device to push on the ubiquitous electromagnetic field. This device may be a hoax or a honest mistake, but the current theories of physics are much farther from being completed than most people believe. Much of the physics taught in school is full of junk that is more definitely wrong than the claims of this patent. For example, the so-called Lorentz force, which is taught as the way how the electromagnetic interaction happens, does not satisfy Newton's law of action and reaction, so it also does not push on what it should push. (When the Lorentz force is integrated over closed loops, it gives correct total results, but when the forces that act on parts of the circuits are computed, the actions and reactions are not equal.) Only the Ampere force, which nobody learns, has a form that is compatible with Newton's laws.
grecy 2y ago
While the odds are he's wrong, it's always worth remembering that everything that was ever discovered seemed wildly wrong and "impossible" before it was eventually accepted as obviously the truth. Copernicus comes to mind. If we hope to advance as a civilization, we need to discover new stuff and new ways of doing things. So in my mind we shouldn't focus on him being "WrOnG", because that will only deter others from trying. We should encourage out of the box thinking and experimentation, and celebrate people who are willing to try new things and look at things with a fresh perspective.
delichon 2y ago
> I'm sorry -- it's much, much more likely that this guy is wildly wrong than him actually finding 1G reactionless engine thrust. The poor headline suggests that, but the inventor claims “the highest we have generated on a stacked system is about 10 milliNewtons.” Of course it would be revolutionary either way.
keepamovin 2y ago
More likely based on your priors. But not "more likely" based on any reasonable or scientific metric. Like, do you have any evidence against this guy's copious evidence? It's ridiculous and totally not science to say, "He's wrong, because reasons". Your reason, I think, is you hope -- like you said. That's okay. But too much of what is hoped negatively by people somehow gets converted (at 100% efficiency no less!) into "absolute scientific truth" or in your case very high probability :) hahah

moffkalast 2y ago

I mean he claims 40 grams of thrust, that should be so trivial to demonstrate. I'm really surprised there's no video of it in action.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
In the video from the conference he does say he has a video. But it was part of a conference and they moved to next speaker. He does say he has a working model and video. Just isn't in this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJjPi7uZ2OI&t=3696s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJjPi7uZ2OI&t=3696s
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Right. The video goes to another school, you wouldn't know it. If he had something concrete he'd lead with it rather than make himself look like raving madman. He's talking about the Bob Lazar ufo at some point ffs.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Pretty sure the references to Bob Lazar were in jest.

tired_star_nrg 2y ago

In what way are they potential civilization destroyers?

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Dark Forest?
- WithinReason 2y ago
  To explain: That book had a civilisation ending kinetic weapon
- gf3 2y ago
  [dead]
bragr 2y ago
Reactionless drives allow for fairly trivial civilization ending kinetic weapons.
- thrill 2y ago
  So does any other source of thrust.
  - NegativeK 2y ago
    Energy in space is nearly free, due to solar. The rocket equation makes reaction mass incredibly expensive. If you get rid of the reaction mass requirement, accelerating a superheavy object to a horrendous velocity takes time instead of a steady stream of resources. Here's more from someone with way more citations than me: https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdrive.php https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdr...
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      If this becomes widespread we will just Iron Dome the whole Earth. But it's worth noting that we could have already ended civilization but haven't. And the people in charge of not having done so are pretty stupid in other areas, so there's that.

sgt101 2y ago

agree it's likely nonsense, but really interested... why are reactionless drives in space civilization destroyers? (I write a bit of science fiction as a hobby and I'm wondering about a story!)

Filligree 2y ago
Kinetic energy equals velocity squared times mass. Incidentally, that is another reason this won’t work: It violates conservation of energy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  How does it violate conservation of energy. If you convert a stored battery charge, to a thrust? EV Cars aren't violating anything. Nothing is saying the thrust is producing more energy than stored in the battery.
  - bewaretheirs 2y ago
    Cars (whether powered by electricity, gasoline, or whatever) push against the road, and the amount of force (and thus energy) required as speed relative to the road increases. But in space, we don't have roads. Rockets push against their reaction mass. What is a hypothetical drive with no reaction mass pushing on?
    - adrian_b 2y ago
      While their description claims that there is no reaction mass pushing on, this does not mean that it is the correct explanation if their device would work. The device might not work far from the Earth, but only in the neighbourhood of other bodies, due to some kind of interaction with them. Moreover, while around the beginning of the 20th century it has become fashionable to rebrand what was called previously "aether" as "vacuum", this change of name has been just a useless cosmetic change. The mathematical description of vacuum has remained the same as that of the aether as conceived by Maxwell and the other physicists who opposed the theories based on action at a distance, i.e. the vacuum is something that mediates the interaction between bodies. Regardless whether it is called aether, vacuum or electromagnetic field, in most theories it is endowed with properties like energy and momentum. So it could happen that there would be a way for a device to push on the ubiquitous electromagnetic field. This device may be a hoax or a honest mistake, but the current theories of physics are much farther from being completed than most people believe. Much of the physics taught in school is full of junk that is more definitely wrong than the claims of this patent. For example, the so-called Lorentz force, which is taught as the way how the electromagnetic interaction happens, does not satisfy Newton's law of action and reaction, so it also does not push on what it should push. (When the Lorentz force is integrated over closed loops, it gives correct total results, but when the forces that act on parts of the circuits are computed, the actions and reactions are not equal.) Only the Ampere force, which nobody learns, has a form that is compatible with Newton's laws.

grecy 2y ago

While the odds are he's wrong, it's always worth remembering that everything that was ever discovered seemed wildly wrong and "impossible" before it was eventually accepted as obviously the truth. Copernicus comes to mind. If we hope to advance as a civilization, we need to discover new stuff and new ways of doing things. So in my mind we shouldn't focus on him being "WrOnG", because that will only deter others from trying. We should encourage out of the box thinking and experimentation, and celebrate people who are willing to try new things and look at things with a fresh perspective.

delichon 2y ago

> I'm sorry -- it's much, much more likely that this guy is wildly wrong than him actually finding 1G reactionless engine thrust. The poor headline suggests that, but the inventor claims “the highest we have generated on a stacked system is about 10 milliNewtons.” Of course it would be revolutionary either way.

keepamovin 2y ago

More likely based on your priors. But not "more likely" based on any reasonable or scientific metric. Like, do you have any evidence against this guy's copious evidence? It's ridiculous and totally not science to say, "He's wrong, because reasons". Your reason, I think, is you hope -- like you said. That's okay. But too much of what is hoped negatively by people somehow gets converted (at 100% efficiency no less!) into "absolute scientific truth" or in your case very high probability :) hahah