They also didn’t say it was 100% impossible for the LHC to create black hole that would devour Earth, and we all remember those countless scientists that were against its operation! Or the day Earth actually was devoured. Man, that day sucked.
I know, I shouldn’t…
Nonsense. Feeding the trolls is one of the greatest joys in life.
Hey, I only argued for things that I think most people can agree are true. Namely:
I agree. The problem is that Red_Syns deals in absolutes:
He uses the commonly accepted burden of proof to dismantle his own argument. Funny stuff.
You continue to fail to provide any evidence as to why I should believe the Law of Conservation of Momentum should stand any chance of being violated, I see.
Why do I have to provide any evidence? Did I claim that the EM drive 100% violates these laws?
I simply statet that there is a possibility that this drive could voilate these laws, I didn’t say that this is likely, quite the very contrary. You act like the laws of physics are untouchable, that even when scientific results force us to refine them, they can"t be wrong. Thats all I am arguing the whole time, I am sorry if you didn’t get it.
There is no partial violation of the law. The conservation of momentum is extremely simple: all momentum is conserved. If at any point there is a loss or a gain of momentum, the law is “100% violated.”
I have stated that there has never been a violation of the law observed. Not in quantum mechanics. Not in galactic mechanics. Not at the atomic, subatomic, or human scale. Not once in countless experiments has the law of conservation of momentum ever been found to be incorrect.
I have no obligation to provide evidence that the law is true. You have all the obligation to provide it is not, if you want to have your opinion considered valid by anybody of sound mind. Prove it is not, and I will change my opinion to include the information presented.
reminds me of my grandma when she used to talk about god and the heavens
Post withdrawn.
(Getting into arguments on the internet makes me feel stupid.)
The difference is that there are mountains of evidence supporting the conservation of momentum, and little to none supporting either the em drive or your grandmother’s imaginary friend.
i’m not saying that the law needs to be proven, it is already, but the OP topic isn’t, the measures are too small to be considered yet, they could be a phenomena, it could be something else, it needs a theoric base, untill then it won’t go anywhere
I just wanted to hop in and say that agnosticism and atheism are different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief.
Go on now.
well, it’s not fake,but also not that serious
EM drivers is not that mysterious.
EM has energy and momentum, so the driver in fact obey the physics’ law
For instance.
You can open your car’s light, and your car gets a force(very very tiny) backwards.
For EM has no rest mass (because EM always run as speed C) so it’s not easy to understand the driver.
And also, you have to know that sometimes, they need to “create some big news” to apply for official funds or private investment.
The theory is not complex, just remember, your cars’ lights is also a “backwards” driver of your car theoretically.
You are misinformed.
While photon drives can exist, although similarly named, the EM drive is not one of them. The EM drive produces about an order of magnitude more “thrust” than the theoretical best case 100% efficient photon drive using photons for propellant.
That’s the whole issue with the drive! It has a large anomalous readings that even after accounting for thermal errors and Electromagnetic interactions there is still a relative large amount unaccounted for. If it were as easy as calling it a photon drive we wouldn’t be here.
The fact that we still read “thrust” whether its true or error, means that there are unaccounted forces. Since its not using any propellant but still moving mass its a violation of conservation of momentum. You create something from nothing! That is the issue.
Define “large”
Like this big.
<------------>
I say large relative to power levels. 80W(I think it could be a bit higher but I don’t remember. Don’t shoot the messenger!) gives 100uN of “thrust”. They say that they accounted for 20uN through combined EM and thermal errors which leaves ~80uN of anomalous readings. Supposedly they will release these findings in a paper sometime next year.
I say large because a photon drive should have about 5-10uN of thrust at these power levels(i believe this is the EM error they described and accounted for) but an order of magnitude is a pretty big deal at this scale.
Again, I’m only repeating what I’ve read. No need to shoot the messenger and you can read my thoughts on this in the two previous larger posts I’ve made.
define “larger” 
Sorry kamui, you are too fast for me! I edited it in right after you posted
Edit:
From the wiki on photon rockets.
The power per thrust required for a perfectly collimated output beam is 300 MW/N (half this if it can be reflected off the craft
If you divide by 10e6 you get 30W per uN which is inline with what I said…remember this is a best case scenario as well. Nothing is perfect 