Punching someone in the face because you spent too long at the pub to get a hot steak has nothing to do with political correctness. Clarkson even said weeks later that he regrets his actions. Probably noticed a missing paycheck.

You know i don't get prime, but if i wanted to i bet i could still watch this new topgear. But why would i want to? 90% of the old show was camera and editing work. The show was good despite 3 clowns that can't drive and don't know shit about well just about anything. Not to mention their brand of humor was getting very juvenile of late.

No. The funny bits are not when he is being an arsehole. Those bits are not aired. He says things like "i feel like i am working for the enemy". To him, his enemies include all cyclists, all government officials, all people with "inferior" cars, all other people with cars on the road he wants to drive on... just everybody basically. I don't doubt that this show will not live up to expectations (without the filming and editing team they are shit out of luck).

This is why i bittorrent. But not this show. I watched top gear despite Clarkson. He is a total arsehole.

Go learn some basic physics dude. And the experiments behind them. Hell do some yourself.

No there is nothing in anything even remotely close to "we have ideas how this works". Star trek level technospeak doesn't count as a theory. It may work for a new scientist article, but that is all.

Nope. Just NO and no. The abstract of this paper. the first one properly published, and disappointing editing work as well. Shows ZERO force outside systematic errors. The last 2 "experiments" that were done very poorly, also showed zero force outside systematic errors.

Nothing has been shown. Nothing at all. This is also from the guy who claims he had a antigravity device. He is not too keen on theory at all, and is very good and finding what he want to find when experimenting.

For Gods sake. READ THE FUCKING PAPERS. There is no theory (arm waving doesn't count and very refuted, ie wrong) and also it DOESNT FIUCKING WORK.

This study shows ZERO force outside systematic errors. JUST LIKE THE LAST 2, that are so sloppy they didn't get published.

The inventor himself claims reactionless drive. aka violates momentum conservation. So yea the inventor claims it. It is in his self published paper of absolute made up garbage that has shown to be wrong more than once. ie he made up a theory and its wrong.

No i am thinking of a warp drive. The Alcubierre drive or space time metric in particular. It the sort of metrics that lead to closed timelike space curvature or whatever (its been a while), ie time travel. In all these cases various things are not conserved that are wildly held to be conserved, requires negative energy etc.

Sure math can be predictive. But that leads you in the direction of a experiment, it is the experiment that matters. I can get imaginary results for calculations for throwing a ball, that does not make the ball imaginary. Even more interesting is that we have fudged the math a lot in the past, because it works. Later mathmaticians make it more rigioirs. In otherwords we design the math to fit the universe we live in.

Peer review at this level is. Did you do a reasonable experiment. Have you identified errors etc. The NASA ones did not even pass that.

Strong words from an AC.

I got the math slightly wrong on that post. However, it is still true that any reactionless drive is also a over unity device.

Lets say i have this thing on a plane traveling at constant speed. The power *output* in the stationary frame of reference is simple force times distance traveled per second. pout=fv. No matter how much energy is needed to create the force f, there is always some velocity v that means pout is larger than power in.

You can also do the calculations based on total energy. You still get more out (more kinetic energy) than you put in. Lets say we use input power P for a force output of f. Our craft has mass m. Acceleration is a=fm. After time t the power input is Pt. Velocity is at, and the kinetic energy is .5*m*t^2*a^2. Since kinetic energy is going up by a factor of t^2 it is easy to see that at some time t>T, it will be larger than total energy input. We can find that characteristic time by solving tP=.5*m*t^2*a^2 for t. T=2*P/(m*a^2).

The result can be generalized to any frame of reference. ANY reactionless drive is a over unity device in some characteristic time eventually.

Err not really. You have to violate a bunch of things widely held to be true for real mass configurations. Also you need negative mass, which doesn't exist even theoretically, oh and more mass energy than the entire universe. Finally it is totally causally disconnected from the rest of the universe.

Just because i write down math does not make it a valid prediction.

Little p and big P. Really that is the math. Do it yourself. Reactionless drives are *always* a over unity device in some characteristic time.

Because all scientists are clearly infallible which climate models (read the papers!), but dark matter, conservation of momentum/energy then obviously all scientists are total idiots.