

EmDrive  (Source:
It's a a propellantless microwave thruster that defies Newton's laws of motion










Source: Wired

Comments     Threshold


RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By maugrimtr on 2/11/2013 8:51:45 AM , Rating: 5
The problem with these sorts of experiments is pretty simple. When you publish your results, you must immediately ensure that everyone else on the Planet can re-perform the exact same experiment and obtain the exact same result. A single documented experiment (subject to criticism - of a scientific nature) is just the beginning of the process we call the Scientific Method. Essentially, this boils down to the following: Propellantless thrust is impossible. It still is. One experiment simply casts a little doubt. Two independent experiments casts some serious doubt. Five experiments with ever more scientists suspecting it's real starts to qualify as scientific progression. One day, it may even graduate to being an observable "fact" (not Theory - if it works, it works - the Theory is about HOW it works).

Criticising Science for exhibiting traits like doubt and suspicion is mere ignorance. Scientists don't believe stuff - they KNOW stuff. Anything phrased as a belief is a THEORY (e.g. the theories of gravitation and relativity which are likely only approximations of some deeper truth).

RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By nafhan on 2/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By delphinus100 on 2/11/2013 10:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Propellentless thrust is impossible? Not true. A laser or other light source aimed out the back would cause some small (but measurable) amount of thrust - with no propellent.

It depends on what you mean by 'propellant.' Photons do carry away momentum (solar sails could not work, otherwise), and that satisfies Newton's Third Law. They are the 'reaction mass.' That's what 'photon rockets' are about, and you described a crude but accurate form of one.

RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By maugrimtr on 2/12/2013 8:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
Rocket which streams photons out the back is still streaming something, i.e. a propellant, out the back. Saying something is true does not make it true.

RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By JKflipflop98 on 2/12/2013 10:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
Likewise, people have labelled things "impossible" for as long as they've been around. Things are impossible until they're not - just like propellantless thrusters. If you really understand science, you understand how dumb it is to call anything impossible.

Sailing around the world? Impossible once. Going faster than the speed of sound used to be impossible. Going to the moon? Same. And it won't be too long before I can add EM engines and FTL travel to that list.

RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By 91TTZ on 2/12/2013 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to misunderstand basic science and the meaning of the word "impossible". You're confusing it with "not feasible".

At no time did anyone claim that sailing around the world is impossible.

By maugrimtr on 2/14/2013 9:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
In an infinite Universe with uncertain laws of Physics (the multiverse), nothing can ever be impossible.

That said, Science is a study of facts and evidence. You start with an assumption. Saying something is impossible is just such an assumption. It remains a truthful assertion UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE because it fits with what we already understand as being true.

If we took your approach, it misses the point of the Scientific Method. If you haven't proven it, it hasn't happened. It's one reason why a lot of social research appears to be self-obvious - we know that people deny Evolution because their reason has been overcome by blind faith. However, in Science that is NOT true unless it's proven, i.e. someone actually goes out, performs a poll, and collects hard data.

By nafhan on 2/12/2013 3:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
I've generally only seen the term propellant used for massive particles, but I wouldn't necessarily say your definition is wrong. It is however kind of irrelevant. You are probably looking for the term reactionless.

Anyway, the point I was making is that in both situations (photon drive and "EmDrive") you're deriving your forward movement from the expenditure of electrical energy. Thus both have the same advantage for space travel: no need to carry propellant mass . This sets both apart from standard chemical rockets, ion drives, and anything else that throws mass (i.e. propellant) out the back to move forward.

Photon drives and the "EmDrive" also have something else in common: neither are practical with current tech. :)

RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By Ammohunt on 2/11/2013 2:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
On man by himself carving and moving 1,100 tons of coral rock to build the Coral Castle is impossible as well but Edward Leedskalnin did it and he wasn't even a Scientist.

RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By JediJeb on 2/11/2013 9:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you get rated down and yet the object exists and no one has been able to explain how it was built.

By Ammohunt on 2/12/2013 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 3
yeah not sure what that is about. People around here sometimes have problems with hard truths; mostly likely derived from lack of life experience.

By nafhan on 2/12/2013 3:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're confusing impossible with impractical.

The naysayers in your example felt it was impossible because of the scale of the project. It's unlikely that anyone believed large amounts of stone cannot be carved (as there's plenty of evidence). The naysayers regarding the EmDrive are making the case that it actually can't be done, and that's largely due to lack of evidence.

