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.

Angel is a regular here and often goes on and on about germany and in particular its wind and solar energy with totally crazy and provably incorrect claims with utility (often in the links he/she provides). He/she also comes up with crazy stuff about how many people have been killed with nuclear and stuff.

The same is true for Uranium. Since a Thorium fuel cycle *burns* 233U it also still has decay heat. Throttling down can be done, but heat dumps are required. Not hard to do since even conventional generation often needs that. Thorium is not magic and homogenous reactors not restricted to Th.

Because it is not global warming :D

IF you really do have a reactionless drive. You really do have a free lunch. It is a over unity device.

The output power of a device traveling at speed v with force f is p=fv (work per unit time=force x distance per unit time). if the power force coefficient is k such that f=kP where P is the input power. Then once traveling at speed v=1/k output is higher than input. Your getting free energy. You can generalize this for total energy and arbitrary frames of reference pretty easily.