NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

This is a very interesting find.

Sorry to say it, but the scientific illiteracy expressed in this thread is appalling.

The thread is about a new means of obtaining a thrust, which is force.

Starting at page one, posters confuse force with energy, including using this thruster as an energy source!

Good God. It's just awful.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Agreed


Ion thrust for example may not seem very powerful but over a period of months on a long journey proves it's worth. I put this in the same boat so to speak.

originally posted by: Harte
The thread is about a new means of obtaining a thrust, which is force.

I believe I've heard Tom Bearden say that mainstream science does not have a clear definition of "force."

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Harte
The thread is about a new means of obtaining a thrust, which is force.

I believe I've heard Tom Bearden say that mainstream science does not have a clear definition of "force."

Well, Bearden is very wrong there again.

a reply to: hellobruce

Why not link your source?

Then the discussion can progress.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: hellobruce

Why not link your source?

Why haven't you linked to your source???

a reply to: hellobruce

You mean where Bearden said that?

Who gives a crap what Bearden says?

“Dr.” Bearden is fond of putting PhD after his name. An Internet check revealed that his doctorate was given, in his own words, for “life experience and life accomplishment.” It was purchased from a diploma mill called Trinity College and University—a British institution with no building, campus, faculty, or president, and run from a post office box in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The institution’s owner, one Albert Wainwright, calls himself the college “registrant.”

Source: Martin Gardener

Resorting to flimflam artists and quantum flapdoodlists for information is as appalling as trying to say this drive produces energy when in fact it actually consumes energy.

Harte

originally posted by: hellobruce
Well, Bearden is very wrong there again.

The following is from Bearden's website in the article "Engines and Templates: Correcting Effects Confused as Causes":

. . . Insofar as questioning the "dual field concept" is concerned, the problem certainly has been long debated, but not resolved. As we mentioned, there is fundamental duality involved even in the notion of force itself. E.g., quoting Feynman:

"…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!" [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2.]

Even in recognizing the duality of a theory, however, physicists often have not clearly recognized that they confuse effect as cause in their use of the field concept itself. So they have not resolved the issue, even with the "duality" principle which was just an agreement to quit fighting and use either the particle view or the wave view, as one wished, if it worked. It did not address or solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of cause and effect.

The field concept itself is perhaps the most primary example of dual use of a concept for two precisely contradictory things. The concept of a force—which is an effect and never a cause, but is used nearly universally as a cause—is also a fundamental part of the confusion. Force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation process a priori. The d/dt operation of the observation process was also not properly taken into account. . . .

www.cheniere.org...

I doubt you'll find Feynman stating that force is "never a cause."

Bearden needs this argument for his bogus vacuum energy.

A force causes a change in velocity of a mass. Therefore a force is certainly a cause.

The fact that a mass is needed is what Feynman is talking about.

Bearden wants to pretend that effects can't be causes.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Can you post a definition of "force"?

Trust a fellow Brit to "break" science

I sent this article to my cousin who is in fact an actual rocket scientist working with a private sector aerospace company, and just heard back from him. He is skeptical of their findings, and believes that there is a testing issue. One thing he brought up was that this test was conducted in a vacuum chamber at ambient temperature, and even a slight humidity evaporation on one side of the engine at ambient temperature could skew results.

If they ran the test in a vacuum at temps close to absolute zero, as would be found in space (there is essentially no ambient temperature in space), and the results showed thrust, that might be more interesting.

So basically, he found it interesting, but felt that more controlled testing needed to be done before results could really be proved accurate.

a reply to: crazyewok

I love the movers and shakers.

Salt of the earth.



But they're probably of all nationalities.

Interesting topic.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Harte

Can you post a definition of "force"?

Force is defined as mass times acceleration.

If you look at it, you'll see that force doesn't stand alone, but depends on a change in velocity of a mass.

Force itself cannot be defined without those two parameters.

Because of this, "force" is an idea, a word invented (actually, borrowed I suppose) to indicate what has to happen for a mass to change velocity.

This is what Feynman was talking about.

In that way, it's no different from a term like "energy," or "momentum." It's just more basic and thus closer to the so-called "problem" because both of those require a force. In fact, they are actually caused by a force - another example of force being a cause and not an effect.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
Force is defined as mass times acceleration.

Isn't that exactly like gravity, where we have a formula, but we don't know what causes it? And that's a problem?

Thanks for your input.

Another report about this:

www.theverge.com...

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: 2012newstart
New theories are not ridiculed AS LONG AS they fit the observations.

If you have to twist the observations to fit your theory then the theory is probably no good.

People who say science isn't open to new ideas are idiots. Every single theory we have now was once a new idea. Science picks the fittest theories and kills the weak ones. It's like evolution. (Which is probably why so many idiots can't understand it!)

ok so explain how it is the chinese are or are going to be flying this thing if it's worthy of ridicule? huh? poke! poke! huh?

a reply to: Harte
I'm good at the sciences I studied a lot. Physics was not one of those. Cut us all a break,
and just explain it; I haven't had a physics course in 30 years. F=ma.