No, the EM Drive is not a warp drive.

In more or less order:

  • No, the EM drive is not a warp drive.  Warp drives are called that because they, well, warp space-time; the EM drive simply appears to produce thrust without using reaction mass.  Which violates conventional physics, yes, but not in the same way that deforming space-time might.
  • No, the EM drive is not going to get us to Mars in a month.  By all accounts the drive gives off less thrust than solar sails. If solar sails could get us to Mars in a month we’d have gone already.
  • No, we don’t even know if the EM Drive really works. A paper describing the engine passed peer review. Lots of things pass peer review, and not all of them checked out.
  • Finally: “I F*cking Love Science” is, generally speaking, a harmless enough religion. But it can grate, sometimes. Particularly when it comes to its adherents who don’t actually realize that they’re part of a religion.

That’s it. No links: I’m not entirely certain that the sites that set off this rant don’t have malware on them.

6 thoughts on “No, the EM Drive is not a warp drive.”

  2. “Finally: “I F*cking Love Science” is, generally speaking, a harmless enough religion. But it can grate, sometimes. Particularly when it comes to its adherents who don’t actually realize that they’re part of a religion.”

    *Ahem* the style guide demands that you say “I f*cking love science, sexually.”
    *looks up*
    Wait, wrong site.

    1. Do you perhaps mean “I love f*cking science” ?
      .
      Because I know a physicist or two who would *really like* to know how to get some groupies ..
      .
      Mew

  3. > No, the EM drive is not going to get us to Mars in a month.

    Well, not in its current form, no (assuming it’s a real thing at all). But (again, if it really works) we shouldn’t assume what we’ve got now is the best it will ever be.

    .

    Also, if you want the SF name for this, it appears to be reactionless thruster/impulse drive.

Comments are closed.