You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: EmDrive — The Physics-Defying Thruster That NASA Is Puzzled Over
I am very sceptical.
Do you have references in which I could read further?
Also, one accepted paper does not mean the key for interstellar travels is there. Data must be reproduced first (this holds in general no matter what).
To make it short, I am not saying this is not possible. But we are far from being able to do it and one experiment enough is not enough. And I would like to read about the how to to understand better the theory behind.
Actually its not one experience. Multiple independent teams throughout the world have been able to replicate it and have shown that it works. But I agree with you. We are far from achieving this. A lot of testing and refinements will be necessary for any future applications.
Just to make it clearer: having one accepted paper does not mean anything. We have (many) examples of that.
Being peer-reviewed means that one or two experts reviewed the article and found it valuable. It does not mean that the results are necessarily correct or are the final words on the issue at stake.
But this is good hope, I agree.
PS: bookmarking the post, will read about this next week when I will have time and come back to it. You triggered my curiosity.
Yes, I know. That is why the further testing and also the testing in space. If they show that it works in space (managing to stay in orbit for longer periods of time), they will have to do work to understand the theory behind it.
The inventor of the EmDrive, Roger Shawyer, claims however that the drive doesn't break any laws of physics. We will have to wait and see for future investigations.
http://emdrive.com/principle.html
Take a look here.
That's fine, thanks. I read other stuff in the meantime.