## EM Drive

### 0.1g to 0.1 c

I'd settle for 0.1g to 0.1 c: That gives us the solar system !!

D'uh, I'd settle for an EM thruster fitted to ISS for orbit maintenance as proof of concept....

Like a solar sail, a microgravity boost's effects accumulate...

D'uh, I'd settle for an EM thruster fitted to ISS for orbit maintenance as proof of concept....

Like a solar sail, a microgravity boost's effects accumulate...

Thats not how the Mach Effect works. If you can't bother to read the papers and understand the maths, then save your comments for places where it doesnt matter, like your loo.chrismb wrote:Yes. It is indeed impossible. I've mentioned this chap before here. He has a piece of kit pluged into the wall. Same issue I have raised with "Mach effect" thrusters applies - the reaction force causing the motion is likely being borne by the electrons pushing back on the generator generating the electical power.

You need an electrical supply that is in the same inertial frame as the motive parts, to exclude this [simple] interpretation.

### Re: 0.1g to 0.1 c

0.1g to 0.1 c gives us interstellar trips in one lifetime. Then we just need some good hybernation technologies and we are good to go.Nik wrote:I'd settle for 0.1g to 0.1 c: That gives us the solar system !!

D'uh, I'd settle for an EM thruster fitted to ISS for orbit maintenance as proof of concept....

Like a solar sail, a microgravity boost's effects accumulate...

It didn't occur to me that the effect was proven as working.IntLibber wrote:Thats not how the Mach Effect works.

As far as I know it is still a theoretical model with no repeatable experiment available.

There has been something new in the last months that I missed?

I have read the papers and the the math. He adjusted the math to be feasible to his theory. This does not mean that his theory is wrong, but just that until he proves his math to be correct (with a proper experiment) no one should claim that it is right either.IntLibber wrote:If you can't bother to read the papers and understand the maths, then save your comments for places where it doesnt matter, like your loo.

Using math I can prove to you that 1 is equal to 2, but that does not mean that I can generate an experiment to prove it.

Like Giorgio says. yeah, I know that's not how the Mach effect isIntLibber wrote:Thats not how the Mach Effect works. If you can't bother to read the papers and understand the maths, then save your comments for places where it doesnt matter, like your loo.

*supposed to work*[you are saying you know it to work already!?!] but it is as non-sequitur as the italian guy who says

*"something is happening in my apparatus, therefore it must be what I claim it to be!!"*

For heavens sake, mankind, have you really not gotten beyond this kind of 'superstitious' way of looking at things? Create a belief system and if there is any sort of match to reality [however tenuous, it seems] then it is considered duly demonstrated?

What do you expect from a race where religions influence every aspects of life?chrismb wrote:For heavens sake, mankind, have you really not gotten beyond this kind of 'superstitious' way of looking at things? Create a belief system and if there is any sort of match to reality [however tenuous, it seems] then it is considered duly demonstrated?

Ehehe, after all isn't that what most of these so called mathematical proofs are based on?KitemanSA wrote:No, you can't. Though you can mis-use the symbols to fool the gullable perhaps.

1 ) a = b

2 ) ab = b² [ multiply by b both sides ]

3 ) ab - a² = b² - a² [ subtract a² from both sides ]

4 ) a(b - a) = (b + a)(b - a) [ distributive law ]

5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ]

6 ) [From point 1) we know tha a = b, so]

7 ) b = 2b

8 ) 1 = 2

Here is a pretty good link for everyone to enjoy

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/index.shtml

Code: Select all

`5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ] `

As for experimental demonstrations of the mach effect, unless conventional explanations are accounted for, mainstream physicists will find the work unconvincing.

Dividing by zero is fine except when you divide ZERO by zero and then it is undefined. So step 5 doesn't exist and there is no proof. As I said, no you can't!hanelyp wrote:Since a == b, (b-a) == 0, this is division by zero.Code: Select all

`5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ]`

Hypothesis: Adding 1(puddle of water) to 1(puddle of water) gives you 1(puddle of water).

*....thought experiment done. hypothesis proved...*

Divide both sides by the non-zero attribute (puddle of water) and you get 1+1=1.

Of course you can't prove it, but you can show itKitemanSA wrote:Dividing by zero is fine except when you divide ZERO by zero and then it is undefined. So step 5 doesn't exist and there is no proof. As I said, no you can't!hanelyp wrote:Since a == b, (b-a) == 0, this is division by zero.Code: Select all

`5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ]`

In the end all what you need to convince someone is to show that your logic is solid, without showing where the faults are. This was the main point of my digression