• Hosted by Branzone
  • PayPal Donate

Warp drive is real

Submitted by: Goshin @ 11:57 AM | Tuesday, August 30, 2016 | (url: http://www.dailym...)

Once again, vindication for Goshin
I was right about the NASA Rocket, I was right about being cool, and I was right about the warp drive

you guys were all wrong!!!

The idea for an EmDrive was proposed in 2000 by a researcher named Roger Shawyer.

Since then four independent labs, including one at Nasa, have recreated the drive.

But the mysterious engine had baffled scientists because it appeared to violate the law of conservation of momentum, which states for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction.

This means the rocket can only accelerate forward if a force of equal magnitude is sent in the other direction - the rocket's exhaust.

Nasa's Eagleworks team is now ready to reveal its findings, it has been claimed - sending the physic world into a tizzy.

'It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published,' claims one user on the Nasa Spaceflight forum.

Earlier this year, an employee confirmed the team was working on the paper.

'The Eagleworks Lab is NOT dead and we continue down the path set by our NASA management.

'Past that I can't say more other than to listen to Dr Rodal on this topic, and please have patience about when our next EW paper is going to be published. Peer reviews are glacially slow,' Eagleworks engineer Paul March wrote on the same forum.

Earlier this year, a paper published in AIP Advances suggests the EmDrive produces an exhaust like every other rocket.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3764112/Is-mystery-impossible-fuel-free-EmDrive-thruster-solved-Claims-secretive-Nasa-lab-publish-paper-warp-drive-humans-Mars-10-weeks.html#ixzz4IprmtAUT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I'd post this in my space thread but I don't think anyone actually reads that thread anymore (regretfully)

Category: Technology | 90 Comments
Tags: space

08-30-16 - 12:08 PM
I read your thread, boopie. I shake my head a lot and chuckle to myself, but I do read it.
08-30-16 - 12:12 PM

Call me when it's published. None of this teaser bullshit.
08-30-16 - 12:24 PM
Can do, on me your number :sunny:
08-30-16 - 12:30 PM

needs lots of rotating concentric rings with lights on them or it'll never work.
08-30-16 - 12:33 PM
three rights make a wrong
08-30-16 - 12:49 PM
The EMDrive isn't close to a warp drive, its actually very slow. What makes it get us to places fast is the constant propulsion with no fuel requirements. Since there is no friction, it starts slow, but the incessant propulsion keeps adding to the speed.

The closest thing we have to a Warp Drive is the Alcubierre Drive, which does just that, warps, space and rides a wave. If it even does work, we are way off of that.
08-30-16 - 12:54 PM
Also you don't need to carry propellant which is very heavy
08-30-16 - 01:06 PM
I thought we needed real Warp because we'd die once we started traveling so fast (G Force)? If so, how is this useful for space travel (for satellites/probes/rovers/etc. sure but I mean for humans)?
08-30-16 - 01:51 PM

A: not warp drive.
B: not confirmed.
C: appears to violate fundamental laws of physics.

The EmDrive seems too good to be true, and probably is.

As to:
I thought we needed real Warp because we'd die once we started traveling so fast (G Force)?

G Forces come into play in acceleration, it has nothing to do with overall speed... however, acceleration does come into play because Einstein.


That one.

Energy and mass are interconnected. A moving object (which has mass) has kinetic energy. The faster it moves, the more energy it has. In order to accelerate that object, you need to add more energy. As you add more energy, it also adds more mass. At "normal" speeds, this is insignificant, since that whole "square of the speed of light which is a huge number" thing, but as you get up towards that same speed of light, it's now getting to be a real and noticeable issue. That is also compounded by the fact that as the object gets heavier, it requires more energy to accelerate it to the same amount. If you solve the equations, you wind up with the fact that as the objects velocity approaches light speed, its mass approaches infinity... so it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.

In short, Einstein says it's physically impossible to accelerate anything to light speed, and to even start getting up into fractions of it requires exponentially more energy.

A warp drive (an alcubierre drive is the example most often used) works on the theory that if you compress space itself right up, you don't actually have to accelerate your object as much. Theoretically, it's possible. Practically, there's a whole slew of problems, not least of which is that you'd basically need to convert the entire known universe into energy to power one.

Emdrive - if it actually works - is ridiculously useful for satellites and deep space probes. Sats can use one to maintain orbits indefinitely, drastically reducing their cost to operate (no need to replace them because they ran out of fuel and dropped from orbit), and probes can save fuel weight as well as accelerate (albeit slowly) indefinately... which does, however, bring us back to Einstein and his "can't accelerate to light speed" conundrum.
08-30-16 - 02:15 PM
yea but what do they call a quarter pounder with cheese in france?
08-30-16 - 02:20 PM
10 weeks to mars

way slower than light

this is like saying the sopwith camel is ready to break the sound barrier
08-30-16 - 02:36 PM
wouldnt g force not be an issue due to slow accel pos/neg?
i mean as far as humans turning into mush inside some kind of vessel.
08-30-16 - 04:27 PM
But since the universe is flat, and a little bumpy, we could just fold it so Mars is closer than the moon.


sent from *magic device* using Tapatalk
08-30-16 - 04:28 PM
Wah-lah bitches
08-30-16 - 04:33 PM
10 weeks better than 78
Login to comment.