Plug in the claimed numbers. At 1kW in, it generates 1.2mN of thrust. At 100km/s that is a power of 1.2kW. Clearly such over-unity numbers are bogus, and the only place for bogosity to enter in is in the 1.2mN/kW. That's why it must be bogus.
I'm not arguing; I'm ignorant and genuinely curious. (My last formal exposure to physics was over 35 years ago.)
Can you explain why this same reasoning wouldn't apply to any constant-thrust drive, such as a laser or microwave drive? Is it a matter of the thrust/power ratio? Is the "no-perpetual-motion" argument not that the EM drive can't produce any thrust, but that it can't produce so much?
You mentioned elsewhere that you support light-sail research. Hypothetical: Shine an ideally-focused laser upon a light sail. Does the light sail maintain a constant acceleration up to relativistic speeds?
Not saying he spent his campaign money on Russian hackers, but...
I agree. The entire image is only about four times the Moon's diameter wide, which means (if my calculations are correct, bwa ha ha!) the Moon only travels through about 1-1.5 degrees of arc during the video (which is why DSCOVR could shoot it in only 5 hours). The effective pull of the Moon on the Earth is pretty much straight toward the observer the whole time.
But there are no real depth cues, so it's hard to judge that the two bodies are nearly a quarter-million miles apart.
I still refer regularly to my CRC Standard Math Tables—two different editions, both sadly decades out of date.
I was tickled years ago to discover the OEIS; some other math website referred to it, and I was lost for hours. TV Tropes for math nerds.
Now if we could only get CPU/RAM usage as well!
Exactly what I came to say. I'd love to be able tell which tabs are pushing FF over 2GB, or carpet-bombing my CPUs when they auto-refresh, without having to close them all one by one.
Going the speed of light is bad for your age.