'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[Farmhand]

So does anyone agree the object in the video I linked is a bird (pigeon) with a halo caused by the sun/camera ? That close "bird" in the stills is only in about 4 or 5 frames of the original video clip, not that it means much but I think the people filming actually thought they were seeing orbs of some kind, even the people not filming the video. I did not shoot the video, I just found it on you tube and had a closer look. Maybe the other people on the scene were looking though other camera's.

How do all the birds have these light halo's ? They seem very bright like lights. I've never seen that, it must simply be the light and the effects of the digital zoom on the video camera or something. Digital zoom does put halo's on lights. Must be that, I'll try to do it if I ever see any birds up high like that. The halo's must have been created by the camera.

Or is it as one person suggested to me that they are actually ufo's that look like birds ?  haha I think that person was joking. Vulcan Warbirds or something.

..

[MarkE]

@Bill
Your not getting this but that's fine because it took a long time for me to get it as well.

Imagine you are in space with the space station and you push away from it. You move in one direction and the space station because it is very massive moves a little in the opposite direction. This is very intuitive and easy to understand however if the space station did not have the property we call Inertia then when you pushed on it it would move away from you however you would not move at all.

And why wouldn't you move?  Inertia establishes acceleration is proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass.  If there were no property of inertia then mass would not factor into the force versus acceleration relationship. 

If the space station did not have the property of inertia then when you went to push on it you would feel basically no pressure on your hands as if you were not pushing on anything.

You are conflating Newton's Third Law with inertia.  If N3 still applied but there were no such thing as inertia then you would still feel reaction force.  The acceleration of each object relative to a fixed frame would no longer be inversely proportional to the mass of each object.

When an object is resisting a change in motion in space where there is no friction to confuse matters we can see the object has literally nothing to act on in order to resist your pushing or a change in motion other that itself. It is as if the object has attached itself to the fabric of space in some way to resist any change in motion. The real issue here is common sense and normality when we forget to challenge things which are so normal to us we take them completely for granted.

My insight came in the way of a tennis ball hanging from some fishing line in my garage which serves as a marker when I park my truck. I saw it one day and thought... that ball is weightless right now because the line has counteracted the force of gravity. So I poked it and thought if it is weightless but still has mass and there is no real friction present then why does it resist my pushing?. It can't be the string, it isn't the air so how can an object resist a change in motion when it has nothing to act on to counteract the force I have applied to it. The force we call Inertia must act internally on every particle of what we call an object in some way resisting all changes in motion. So really when we say Oh that's just Inertia what we are really saying is... I believe that object has the capacity to act on itself or in effect nothing at all.

Inertia is not a force.  Inertia is a relationship between force, mass, and acceleration.  Inertia is the name we give to that consistently observed relationship.

My insight was that Inertia is not normal, Inertia implies that the internal matter of an object has the capacity to hold or grab on to what we consider to be an empty space to resist a change in motion. You have to ask the question how can it resist if the space around it is empty... resist against what?. Inertia imples matter has the ability to interact with what we consider empty space thus we come full circle back to the topic at hand and impossible rocket drives.


AC

The problem with the E/M drive is that the observed behavior of mass, time, and distance is that in any given frame of reference, the product of mass and distance covered per unit time does not change.  That is conservation of momentum.  It is an even more fundamental observation than conservation of energy.  The idea of the E/M drive is that if E/M energy bounces back and forth in a container of a certain shape that the container and the E/M energy inside of it can all accelerate as observed from an external frame of reference.  Shawyer insists that does not constitute a violation of conservation of momentum.  I, like many others beg to differ.  Solving the math inside the can is complicated, ugly stuff.  But it is very difficult to argue the view from outside the can:  acceleration in one direction can which amounts to a change in momentum can occur without a complementary change in momentum of something else such that the net sum remains constant.

[Pirate88179]

@Bill
Your not getting this but that's fine because it took a long time for me to get it as well.

Imagine you are in space with the space station and you push away from it. You move in one direction and the space station because it is very massive moves a little in the opposite direction. This is very intuitive and easy to understand however if the space station did not have the property we call Inertia then when you pushed on it it would move away from you however you would not move at all. If the space station did not have the property of inertia then when you went to push on it you would feel basically no pressure on your hands as if you were not pushing on anything.

When an object is resisting a change in motion in space where there is no friction to confuse matters we can see the object has literally nothing to act on in order to resist your pushing or a change in motion other that itself. It is as if the object has attached itself to the fabric of space in some way to resist any change in motion. The real issue here is common sense and normality when we forget to challenge things which are so normal to us we take them completely for granted.

My insight came in the way of a tennis ball hanging from some fishing line in my garage which serves as a marker when I park my truck. I saw it one day and thought... that ball is weightless right now because the line has counteracted the force of gravity. So I poked it and thought if it is weightless but still has mass and there is no real friction present then why does it resist my pushing?. It can't be the string, it isn't the air so how can an object resist a change in motion when it has nothing to act on to counteract the force I have applied to it. The force we call Inertia must act internally on every particle of what we call an object in some way resisting all changes in motion. So really when we say Oh that's just Inertia what we are really saying is... I believe that object has the capacity to act on itself or in effect nothing at all.

My insight was that Inertia is not normal, Inertia implies that the internal matter of an object has the capacity to hold or grab on to what we consider to be an empty space to resist a change in motion. You have to ask the question how can it resist if the space around it is empty... resist against what?. Inertia imples matter has the ability to interact with what we consider empty space thus we come full circle back to the topic at hand and impossible rocket drives.


AC

AC:

I actually think that I do get it.  Mark explained it much better than I could in his post above.  In my readings about the space program, I found it interesting to learn that even when weightless in deep space or in orbit, an object still has mass.  No weight, but mass.  It is one of the properties of mass that we are speaking about here.  It is not pushing off against nothing, it is pushing off against the mass of another object in your example.  That other object does not have to connect to anything in the fabric of space, it still resists movement as Newton said and therefore can be pushed off against.  My shuttle example was extreme due to the huge difference in mass but, there was still movement of both the astronaut and the shuttle.
Gravity, as much as is known about it, is accepted as another aspect of mass.  The more massive an object is, the larger its gravitational field.

I am not arguing about this as I am no astrophysicist.  As I said, Mark has explained it better than I could.  I do read a lot and one of my favorite topics is books about the space program.  At this moment, I am listening to the audiobook version of "Failure Is Not An Option", by Gene Krantz, NASA flight controller from the days of Mercury, through the moon landings.  (Including, of course, Apollo 13)  I am about 1/2 through it and I highly recommend it as it is a great book.

Bill

[gravityblock]

It's still a quagmire at this point however what I saw was a closed system which can produce a propulsive force and makes absolutely no sound. If the device in question does work then I can only think that it is directly related to what I saw.


AC

For one, the EmDrive isn't a closed system.  It expels the plasma out the back of the ship for thrust (see snapshot below).  The snapshot was taken from this video titled, "NASA Tests 'Impossible' Engine, Finds Out It's Really Fast".  And for two, a propulsive force utilizing the potential between a vacuum and the atmospheric pressure wouldn't make any sound in an open system either (sound doesn't travel in a vacuum).


Gravock

[gravityblock]

Fundamentally I cannot see how a craft could accelerate and turn at such extreme rates without negating inertia in some way. Which would lead me to speculate it is a field related phenomena however it must also act on matter on the most fundamental level in order to negate inertia.

Yes, but more specifically it has to do with phase displacement.  For more information, see Rhythmodynamics of Nature.

Gravock