Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 478 478

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.

Comment Re:Physics time! (Score 1) 478 478

The problem is, according to everybody who has tested it, the EM Drive does produce thrust.

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.

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 478 478

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.

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 478 478

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.

Comment Re:Blimey (Score 1) 478 478

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.

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 478 478

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.

Comment Re:Blimey (Score 1) 478 478

It's also theoretically possible to have a "warp" drive that produced thrust without propellent by altering the local spacetime metric.

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.

Comment Re:Not an AMD CPU (Score 1) 57 57

I'm bully on ARM, with the (almost) collapse of AMD as a "first rate" processor, it's good to see Intel get some serious competition in a significant market space.

My only beef with ARM is that comparing CPUs is harder than comparing video cards! the ARM space is so fragmented with licensed cores and seemly random numbers indicating the "version" that I have no idea how, for example, a SnapDragon 808 processor compares to a Cortex A9 or an Apple A7.

Really, I'm lost. But the $40 TV stick with the 4x core A9 works pretty well...

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 478 478

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.

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.