Primarily because I rather badly want a reactionless drive. I want one so badly that I suspect my own judgement when it comes to concluding whether something really can break Newton’s Third Law on an observable level. I’m not a scientist; I’m a science fiction fan and scientist enthusiast who is married to an engineer. I grasp my capabilities and limitations when it comes to assessing potential new tech.
And yet… they keep kicking at the EM Drive, and they keep failing to kick it apart. Bear in mind that trying to kick it apart is an absolutely vital part of the procedure, of course. Robert Anton Wilson once described science as the process where we ‘try to find out what the Hell is really going on,’ and testing theories to destruction is part of that process. The universe doesn’t care if I really, really want reactionless thrusters.
So… keep plugging away at it, guys. Even if there’s a non-revolutionary explanation, the drive apparently still works better than light sails do. That’s not nothing, either.
Via
Leaked NASA Paper Shows the 'Impossible' EM Drive Really Does Work https://t.co/Mh8CZpp0hm
— Michael A Stackpole 🇺🇦 (@MikeStackpole) November 7, 2016
Moe Lane
Actually, it might not break Newton’s Third Law after all.
.
This is all beyond me, so I don’t know.
Well, that might be helpful, too. If it doesn’t break physical law then it’s more likely that it really is generating a useful amount of thrust.
Cause and Effect reactions? Rubbish. The universe is really all Wibbley-Wobbley, Timey-Wimey…. Stuff.
.
It all makes *perfect* sense.
From what I’ve read of the EM Drive, the only difference I see between it and a photon drive is a lot of unnecessary complication. It would be useful to know how the thrust of the EM Drive compares to the thrust of an ordinary high-power maser — or even a bunch of high-intensity LEDS — fed the same amount of power.