‘Impossible’ EM drive engine produces thrust from nothing

originally posted by: Erno86
I base my alien interstellar starship propulsion theory from eyewitness accounts of foo fighters, including my own double nighttime sighting; one night in November 1976.

Eye witness accounts of objects they cannot understand are not really an insight on interstellar propulsion because 1) there is no direct proof that these unknown objects are spacecraft and 2) Only manouverability or apparent movement of the objects is described. So how exactly does the thought/logic trail go from "There are some objects I don't understand that move around in a way I don't quite understand" To 'BLACK HOLE PROPULSION!"

Any kind of plasma carries photons that emanate from it...including fusion plasma.

Here is your confusion, plasma does not carry photons. Emitting photons is not the same as storing and carrying. Plasma emits photons as a method of cooling. The only manner you may trap photons with a plasma is if it is of extremely high density, and even then it is not trapped, it is just that it scatters a lot. The density of an accretion disk I don't think is high enough to do such a thing. If so, there would be fusion within accretion disks, a process that would seriously disrupt the formation of the disk and its stability.

I'm speculating that the accretion disk is capable of storing photons, till one or both of the magnetic poles attracts the photons for polar jet expulsion at near the speed of light.

Under what circumstances can the photons be attracted to the magnetic pole? Photons are not magnetic in the sense that we don't bend light with magnetic fields. We might be able to change its properties, but not 'attract' it

I know my theory sounds so simple --- though I think I stumbled upon the idea --- But what we really need is a micro-mini black hole, preferably based on some distant asteroid; where we can study it and possibly refine it into a starship for photon propulsion.
"Black Hole Starships"
www.youtube.com...
"Black Hole Spaceship Propulsion"
www.youtube.com...

What we need is to re-write the universe to have different physics, The concept of harvesting the energy of an accretion disk is not new, its been written about lots of different ways. It would be more efficent to gather that energy and use it than to use the jets, because the jets give you a net zero thrust.

Not only that but, we have no way of making de-generate material, let alone the environment to create a black hole, or even hold it should we want to.

SO once again, it this idea or theory is a cascade of incorrect assumptions and incorrect physics.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are you trying to say the origin of the BH's jets are not magnetic poles?

I never said that. Magnetic fields play a role, but they don't play any role in attracting photons like you said here:

I'm speculating that the accretion disk is capable of storing photons, till one or both of the magnetic poles attracts the photons

I favor the study that says the black hole's two jets that fly out along the black hole's spin axis, are composed of "high energy positron - electron jet plasma."

Then why are you saying they are photons?

The ejected photons are released at the two magnetic poles, an funneled to the thruster outlets of the starship at near the speed of light.

If you had said the jets were expelling "high energy positron - electron jet plasma" instead of saying they were ejecting photons earlier you might have sounded like you had some idea of the science.

However you still have the problem of how to power the jets and the problem Eros mentioned of the net thrust being zero since the two jets are ejected in opposite directions. As I said we are pretty sure the accretion disk can't be the main source of power for the jets we observe in nature, and if the source of that power is lost angular momentum of the black hole, It seems to me like you can't store much of that in your "micro-mini" black hole.

The authors who claim Hawking radiation might be extracted from such a black hole may have a more plausible argument, however I'm not convinced of their claim that black holes would be easier to handle than anti-matter which is dangerous because it can explode on contact with matter. They are right about anti-matter being dangerous, but at least we've demonstrated the ability to handle small amounts of anti-matter, and to my knowledge nobody has ever demonstrated an ability to handle black holes. Black holes may sort of "explode" when they run out of fuel (mass) but I guess you'd just have to make sure to dump them before that happens (if you let the mass of the black hole get as low as one metric ton, the black hole will have about the same luminosity in watts as our sun at that point, and luminosity increases as the mass gets lower). Even before their mass gets that low, a black hole still seem pretty dangerous to me, because if anything falls into it, you're not getting it back.

Alien foo fighters, possibly function from two methods of micro - mini BH photon propulsion fuel sources. One is infinite --- actual starlight photons that are funneled in to the accretion disk of the photon engine, then the accretion disk somehow expels the photons at the two polar jets; where they are funneled to the thruster outlets.


The other finite fuel source...is seawater --- for places that lack regular native starlight photon fuel --- With possible computer assistance, the micro-mini BH magnetic field is comprised of two outer magnetic shields surrounding the starship.

Feeding the black hole starts when seawater/deuterium/? type mixture is injected between the two magnetic shields --- both shields compress against each other till the fusion reaction occurs. The reaction stops when no more fuel between the shields is present. Inside the inner magnetic shield border and the hull...is comprised of seawater, in order to protect the starship from high temperatures and neutron radiation; unless they use some form of aneutronic fusion.

The plasma is funneled to feed the BH...so that the plasma might be absorbed by it's event horizon, but the remaining photons from the polar jets are fed to thruster outlet tubes.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: Erno86
I base my alien interstellar starship propulsion theory from eyewitness accounts of foo fighters, including my own double nighttime sighting; one night in November 1976.

Eye witness accounts of objects they cannot understand are not really an insight on interstellar propulsion because 1) there is no direct proof that these unknown objects are spacecraft and 2) Only manouverability or apparent movement of the objects is described. So how exactly does the thought/logic trail go from "There are some objects I don't understand that move around in a way I don't quite understand" To 'BLACK HOLE PROPULSION!"

Any kind of plasma carries photons that emanate from it...including fusion plasma.

Here is your confusion, plasma does not carry photons. Emitting photons is not the same as storing and carrying. Plasma emits photons as a method of cooling. The only manner you may trap photons with a plasma is if it is of extremely high density, and even then it is not trapped, it is just that it scatters a lot. The density of an accretion disk I don't think is high enough to do such a thing. If so, there would be fusion within accretion disks, a process that would seriously disrupt the formation of the disk and its stability.

I'm speculating that the accretion disk is capable of storing photons, till one or both of the magnetic poles attracts the photons for polar jet expulsion at near the speed of light.

Under what circumstances can the photons be attracted to the magnetic pole? Photons are not magnetic in the sense that we don't bend light with magnetic fields. We might be able to change its properties, but not 'attract' it

I know my theory sounds so simple --- though I think I stumbled upon the idea --- But what we really need is a micro-mini black hole, preferably based on some distant asteroid; where we can study it and possibly refine it into a starship for photon propulsion.
"Black Hole Starships"
www.youtube.com...
"Black Hole Spaceship Propulsion"
www.youtube.com...

What we need is to re-write the universe to have different physics, The concept of harvesting the energy of an accretion disk is not new, its been written about lots of different ways. It would be more efficent to gather that energy and use it than to use the jets, because the jets give you a net zero thrust.

Not only that but, we have no way of making de-generate material, let alone the environment to create a black hole, or even hold it should we want to.

SO once again, it this idea or theory is a cascade of incorrect assumptions and incorrect physics.

Frankly...I don't need any more convincing, that what I saw was a foo fighter in 76.

A BH polar jet is a jet, no matter if its comprised of matter, fusion plasma or just simple photons, with either one producing thrust at or near the speed of light. Harness that type of thrust...is about making a starship that can break the speed of light barrier with constant acceleration in outer space.

Thats fine, frankly I don't need convincing that wanting to believe something so much can send people down very weird paths that are more often than not completely wrong. Im convinced that iv seen a football game, doesn't mean I can tell you exactly how to win a game, what the best training methods are, or how to predict the outcome....


Thats where it falls apart - wanting something so bad you are willing to invent science with zero understanding of the basic principles.

A polar jet is a jet is a meaningless statement, its about as clear as May saying "Brexit means Brexit" The consequences for how much thrust is produced is absolutely dependant upon what it is.

Firstly Matter and Fusion plasma ARE the same thing, there is no difference. - Matter has mass, the process of acceleration would give it 'thrust' But the net thrust of the system is zero.

Photons have momentum, so what ever pressure is being produced is photon pressure, which is very very different.

'Producing thrust at the speed of light' again, this is a confused statement... Anything that can produce thrust can also produce thrust at the speed of light... the gain in velocity will probably be different, but like i said, a confused idea that somehow you are imagining the polar jets to be enormous wind like outflows. Yeah we do know that they can light up an environment, push out pockets of gas (that are very diffuse) but you still have the near impossible task of

Creating the BH
Holding the BH stationary relative to the ship
Getting over the fact that it has a net zero thrust
I guess what I am trying to tell you is it sounds like you are doing the equivalent of blowing on your own sail.

You might say "Hey modern jet engines use thrust reversal! we can just do that with the jets. And here in comes the problem. The power required to magnetically divert the jet if it is plasma, would be counter productive. If it is photons, it would basically destroy the system over time, not only that but radiation damage would be immense.

More importantly, break the light barrier... how exactly? never been proven to be possible, there are some ideas of how to do it but, those are also theoretically impossible based upon our observations of how the universe works currently. Sure not a done deal buuuuut please enlighten us

a reply to: ErosA433

"break the light barrier...how exactly?"

I'm a nuts & bolts saucer proponent...and with my own foo fighter sighting --- I've come to the conclusion, that these alien craft have safely broken the speed of light barrier, because they've been here; and probably have been on a number of other occasions here on our Earth.

So with an interstellar aerial star craft...it would require constant acceleration to at least reach the speed of light barrier --- And with that concept: You would need an infinite amount of fuel to pull it off. Starlight photons could conceivably be the only infinite fuel source for a light-starved micro-mini black hole propulsion unit.

When such a starship reaches the speed of light barrier, it should have no safety problems going into the superluminal zone --- assuming proper coordinates are punched into the navigation computer --- because it should have at least one magnetic shield barrier [created by a computer that redesigns the micro-mini BH's magnetic field], so it should negate the dangerous effects that Einstein proposed on reaching the speed of light barrier with a starship.

originally posted by: ErosA433
If it is photons, it would basically destroy the system over time, not only that but radiation damage would be immense.

Oddly enough, the most feasible idea I've seen for interstellar travel is a fairly destructive system. You explode a sequence of nuclear bombs (sort of a "shaped charge design, aimed at your ship) near your space ship, and the shock waves propel your ship. The idea involved a pusher plate and you could calculate how much ablation of the plate would occur with each nuclear bomb detonated, so it was destructive but the idea was to make the plate thick enough so the total amount of ablation was less than the total thickness of the plate. It would help to have some kind of shock absorber(s) between the plate and the ship as shown in the sketch of the space ship seen at this link.

a reply to: Erno86
I don't see how your foo fighter sighting gives you any special insight into the propulsion.

I see two cars driving down the street, one propelled by an internal combustion engine powered by gasoline, the other propelled by electric motors powered by batteries. Those are two completely different propulsion technologies but the cars look essentially the same to me from a distance.

Also note the Fermi Paradox didn't assume that faster than light travel was necessary for a civilization to spread across the milky way galaxy. It's roughly 100,000 light years across so even traveling at "only" 10% the speed of light a spaceship could traverse the entire diameter in a million years. Of course this would more likely be lots of small hops than a million year trip, so it could take millions of years to spread across the Milky Way but since it's billions of years old there seems to be plenty of time for that, they would just need either life-sustaining ships or some kind of hibernation tech for the long journeys if sub-light.

I don't know why you think infinite energy can be obtained from photons. The observable universe has a finite number of stars, and for each star a finite amount of mass in converted to energy in the form of photons. Since the photons are a finite portion of a finite resource, there's no way they can be infinite in the observable universe, therefore there's no infinite source of energy in the observable universe to reach the speed of light, so the best you can do is get very close to the speed of light where the radiation would kill you.

You have an magnetic shield you say? It only travels at the speed of light, so even if you could somehow go faster than that, you'd be ahead of the shield. The analogy with the speed of sound barrier is like trying to prevent bird impacts from breaking the windshield on your supersonic jet by blaring loud music from a speaker on the front of the jet to scare away the birds. It won't work if the jet is traveling faster than the speed of sound because the birds will splatter against the windshield before they hear the sound from the speaker. The sound from the speaker can't travel faster than the speed of sound just like your hypothetical magnetic shield can't travel faster than the speed of light.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Me thinks we may not completely understand the laws of thermodynamics as much as we may imagine if indeed this device does what it says on the tin.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Thanks for the insights...


But..."it is curious that theoretical physics as we presently understand it seems to leave the door open to the possibility of FTL travel."

With the micro-mini black hole's radius shield surrounding the starship, leaves both the shield and the starship having zero rest mass. Hence...under such conditions, faster than light photon propulsion is feasible.

"It is observed that under certain physical conditions, the singularity expressed by the relativistic stretch factor 'gamma' as the spacecraft's speed (v) approaches the speed of light (c), is no longer present in the physical picture, this involves the instantaneous removal of energy-mass from the system (spacecraft) when the spacecraft's speed reaches v=c/2."[/exnews



"Conditional Possibility of Spacecraft Propulsion at Superluminal Speeds"

www.deepdyve.com...

Can we just establish whether an RF resonant cavity thruster can produce thrust first?

It is VERY VERY unlikely that this weird effect has gone un-noticed by Raytheon et. al. in their 50 years of research with associated technologies given its potential national security implications/applications.

Most likely scenario is that there were errors in the NASA funded research.
Next most likely is that this is already discounted/ is been worked upon in secret.
As the least likely- it actually works.

a reply to: Erno86

The door being left open for FTL travel is often with the following caveats

If "Negative energy density" is possible or exists.

The only tenable methods of achieving FTL is actually more a trick of keeping within the rules but kind of moving the frame of reference. In a way it can be imagined like the passage of a wave, the wave moves forward, but the composing particles do not tend to move much other than up and down, despite the wave moving along the surface. Sort of in the same way.

BUT thats only possible stipulating that we can produce a space-time bending device that can create Positive and negative energy density... neither of which we have a working theoretical device which can do it coupled with the fact that negative energy density has never been observed to be possible.

So, no, its not quite as simple as "The theories say its possible" because the actual statement is "Theory and knowledge of the observed universe mean that it is impossible, or at least very improbable, UNLESS, one huge part of the theory and what we observe in the universe is exactly opposite"


On the EM drive Im kind of getting the impression it is really working as a hall effect thruster, but, im open to it working as theorized too, just seems less efficient than a hall effect thruster thats all

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I read an article about this the other week there, but said that China was the nation who were testing it and have it ready to go!

a reply to: ErosA433

Just because we do not understand how it works, in its entirety, does not mean there are not practical applications through.

This type of propulsion, if it does what it seems to and taken to its logical conclusion, could very well make it practical for us to colonize the Moon, Mars and eventually the rest of the solar system, at least should we also devise a cost-effective method of transport to low-Earth orbit.

Look at it this way, the first human explorers and civilization to utilize sail power probably did not understand all the little idiosyncrasies that allow such a method of propulsion to function aka relatively simple physics to our generation, but they did understand that it worked.

originally posted by: ErosA433
On the EM drive Im kind of getting the impression it is really working as a hall effect thruster, but, im open to it working as theorized too, just seems less efficient than a hall effect thruster thats all

Except a Hall effect thruster requires propellant and the EM drive claims no propellant is involved.

I think NASA's theory is extremely sketchy but apparently it's a nod to the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation, if the thing actually works.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ErosA433

Just because we do not understand how it works, in its entirety, does not mean there are not practical applications through.

We're not completely sure that it works though. Thermal expansion hasn't been ruled out yet. First, a guy with an "antigravity machine" with a Garfield sticker on it mistakes thermal expansion for something else, and maybe now NASA? At least NASA realizes thermal expansion can skew experimental results, something which the antigravity machine guy apparently never figured out.

It's Official: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

There's a lot more work to be done before we can say for sure whether the EM Drive is really producing thrust – the team notes they that more research is needed to eliminate the possibility that thermal expansion could somehow be skewing the results.

And even once that's confirmed, we'll then need to figure out exactly how the system works.

originally posted by: Erno86
With the micro-mini black hole's radius shield surrounding the starship, leaves both the shield and the starship having zero rest mass. Hence...under such conditions, faster than light photon propulsion is feasible.

Erno, you have a really bad habit of saying something, and then posting a link to something in apparent support of your claim which is talking about something else entirely. In this case you're talking about a black hole and your source isn't, but anyway your source doesn't make much sense. It seems to be claiming if a mass could reach the speed of light, then the equations diverge to infinities and singularities, but even if that's true, it doesn't say how you can ever get to exactly the speed of light, because from all our experience, all you can do is add more "9"s, like from .9c to .99c to .999c and so on, but without an infinite supply of energy this will never reach 1.0c, so you never really get to find out if the claims in the paper about the divergences are really true or not because you never get there.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"We're not completely sure that it works though. Thermal expansion hasn't been ruled out yet. First, a guy with an "antigravity machine" with a Garfield sticker on it mistakes thermal expansion for something else, and maybe now NASA? At least NASA realizes thermal expansion can skew experimental results, something which the antigravity machine guy apparently never figured out."

I remember that dude but his name escapes me, i remember the alleged device all the same, that was priceless, time dilation effects/something to do with candle flames all that jazz.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
As good a place as any:

Paper highlighting the Navy's upcoming test - specifically not "to discover new physics"- but instead to test only for anomalous thrust.

Woking link to paper

info.aiaa.org...



Michael McDonald doing an impressive job of prefacing their error analysis:



All bets are off on the EM drive currently but his remarks regarding the broader benefits of researching low probability of success/high reward science were spot on.

Electro and magnetic are 2 seperate waveforms tied together, they are pretending this isn't true. You just need to seperate them and change the phase of the electro. Boom antigravity

I have a gif for this but it won't let me load it

a reply to: Plotus

It doesn't deal with thrust. What it does is creates a 'bubble' around the craft that has no inertia. So another thrust is used to move the craft.