NASA's Helical Engine and Other Reactionless Drives
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2022
- Reactionless drives are spacecraft engines that produce thrust without any exhaust. Examples include the Dean drive, GIT thrusters, and EM drives. The latest proposal is the Helical Engine, described in a NASA technical report by David Burns. In this video I discuss the fundamental reason why reactionless drives don't work: They violate Noether's theorem which links spatial translation invariance to conservation of momentum. I then analyze the physics behind the helical engine, and identify the error made in the NASA technical report.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![พาแม่บินครั้งแรก..เกือบวูบ! ให้เกาหลีเยียวยาใจ I Korea Ep.1 [Seoul] x อุงเอิง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/waL3__dEQBU/mqdefault.jpg)
This was a great video and a great explanation. I do want to remind you and others though that we do not definitively know the rules that govern our universe. We have written "laws" based on observations we have made, and created formula that match those observations. However our knowledge of how the universe works is constantly evolving. Perhaps no form of reactionless drive will ever exist, perhaps we will find that our current understanding of the universe is flawed, that the laws we have created were based on the limited data our technology was capable of observing, and that our assumptions about what is possible were too limited. Or perhaps we will find a new form of energy, or matter or something completely unique that does not follow the formula that we have made up.
I believe it's important for humans to continue attempting to develop technology that violates the laws other humans have made up. We can never prove without a doubt that the laws we have written down are absolute. All we can do is continue to believe they are until someone proves them not to be.
Goodgu is right, we don't have perfect understanding or complete knowledge of the laws of physics. So who knows what the future will bring? The real point of this video, which I should have expressed more clearly, is that no one will ever "invent" a reactionless drive based on our current laws of physics. Yet this is what David Burns claims to have done with the helical engine. Likewise for gyroscopic inertial thrusters (GIT). Our current laws of physics tell us that they won't work. Can I prove that they won't work? Of course not, because I don't have a perfect/complete understanding of physics. But to spend time and money investigating these devices is, at best, a horribly inefficient way to make scientific progress. For example: I could throw some wire, rocks, duct tape and sticks into a box, shake them up, and claim I've invented a new unlimited energy source. According to our current understanding of physics, my box won't work. But you can't prove that it won't work because maybe, just maybe, there are some unknown laws of physics that make my box an unlimited energy source. Should I spend time and money throwing things into a box in an attempt to solve the world's energy problems? No, of course not. But this seems to be the game the GIT folks are playing, and I would hate to see Burn's helical engine go down the same misguided path.
@@PhysicsUnsimplified with the helical engine I was thinking the logic behind it is it conserves momentum through using the effects of relativity as a method to gain traction against space-time itself, something that has energy consumption an output thrust against an object outside the system. I never thought of it as a reactionless engine/dive but more a form of semi extra dimensional propulsion, something that consumes energy to turn kinetic energy into extra momentum. Of course I come here not having read the paper but instead just having seen a few videos of the basic principles behind it. (I now realize it's kinda dumb to think one could utilize kinetic energy like its a form of potential.)
So I guess the question I have is is the logic I was using flawed? Is it not possible to gain momentum/speed with a craft traveling over .5 C bouncing a ball between the front and rear walls in such a way energy is consumed? Is there no way with current relativistic physics to create thrust through kinetic energy transferring into phantom mass in an object's frame of reference?
"We have written "laws" based on observations we have made, and created formula that match those observations. "
You seem to have missed the part where the author explains that the conservation of momentum is a _fundamnetal_ consequence of the fact (OK, you may call it assumption) that experiment outcome does not change if performed somewhere else. Similarly, conservation of energy stems form the fact that the experiment will behave the same if we conduct it a bit later. The only _observation_ here is translation invariance in space and time.
We _wont_ find "a new form of energy, or matter or something completely unique that does not follow the formula that we have made up"; what we _might_ find is some source of energy more potent or easier to exploit than what we know of today, but it will still follow these laws.
@@PhysicsUnsimplifiedYou explained it very well! The analogy I like to use for this flawed arguement - "You never know if you never try" - is...
There is the famous phrase "Give 1 million monkeys 1 million typewriters and they'll eventually type the entire works of William Shakespeare."
So as a publisher you can certainly invest your time and money in a million monkeys and you'll have a masterpiece, however it is certainly the most inefficient way of going about having a best seller.
Very well said. You beat me to it (by at least a year), but I don't think I could've said it any better. Man's Law is not Nature's Law, just the most rational abstraction that we're currently able to make.
That is for a closed system. You can make reactionless drives that work in an Open system. One that works with Quantum forces that can travel through a closed system. You will see.
Can you show how em drive can't work ? It would be very enlightening
This video is a very simplistic view of the world. What we call law of momentum is but a simple model and abstraction of the world, not taking into account the mass of unknowns of how our reality really works. Science is literally about reinvention thought models over and over again, to find the closest model we can think up. People who are constricted in thought about the laws of what one human mind has thought up, would have never discovered quantum mechanics or even gravity, which are mere theoretical models and that are still mot understood.
Loved this video can you do one on the dean drive why does it seem like it work they built models and they move when is the mistake happening exactly
Laws can be broken in a simulation 🤯🤯
Edit: Mildly trolling, love the video 🤙 Just remember the laws are absolute, not our current understanding of them.
But we understand the laws of nature well enough.
I believe it was intended to be used in orbital maneuvers. Imagine that apogee is 200km and perigee is 150 km. Particle shift to the right could occur at 150 km to raise the orbit to, say, 151 km. Then wait to particle shift back to the left until satellite reaches the apogee of the orbit, decreasing it to 199km. This method effectively raises the orbit of a satellite by borrowing from the other end of the orbit. This does not violate the laws of physics.
Have à wonderful New Year's!/ / thanks
The em drive seems like it may work. Your turning energy into a force.
Really enjoyed this interesting topic, so clearly explained. I'm still puzzled that a NASA scientist thought the Helical engine would work. Even an average schmuck like me instantly remembered that you can't turn angular momentum into linear momentum.
you can do it with a smoke ring and thats how the Oberth manuever works. those laws were proved by Emmy Noether in 1918 and Einsein and Hilbert agreed. Gravity is 2d and it pushes not pulls and this will happen and we desperatly need itwith 8 billion peopl e on this round planet. The cosmos looks flat , becaue we are like a crocodiel with eyes at sea level in a stricly dynamic sense. its complex to grasp but it makes sense and its used. funny that Noehter puts it flat out but people like to limit themsleves to "laws".. its not free energy its cheap energy and its not ballistic it shakes. a kid made one. Hexgon btw is the LIE group that explains teh sysmmetry.. is a packign thing.. SR is not compatible with GR so it needs to be nanotech.. People need to grow and spine get on the moon and try some of this stuff.. we have enough grean and cheap energy to boil the ocean.. better to give the earth a rest and thsi is the way.
What do you think about Dr. Charles Buhler and your propellantless propulsion?
is Zee the same as Zed ?
I dont really understand this sort of stuff so this may be a stupid question but would it not be possible to accelerate the ions at a fast pace and then shut them down before the point of return? So you have a constant forward flow of ions with nothing propelled backwards?
If anyone has an answere can you please dumb it down haha
Hi, can someone tell if the fast combined movement trough space we all ride has an relativistic effect on mass and inertia, inertia should be higher in the momentary direction we move and normal 90° to the sides.. my rough calculations showed about 50mg difference for a 70kg person .. thx for proove or disproove of this idea :)
Is NASA publishing things on their website without peer review these days? Thanks for the analysis.
The concept was already mentioned by Bikash Kunwar in his Nobel Deity's Planet which was published in 2016 . He explained as:
Kishan was a scientist in SSO and he had invented a fastest flying object theory. Ship was designed in such a way that the energy could not lose but was changed in one form to another due to which energy was sufficient for the ship to travell long distance on a very long time and there were no other elements in space to loose energy for which required energy was rotated within the ship’s engine. Speed was increased with a continuous strike of light which made ship fast and traveled 15 times faster than of sunlight, elements used on all parts of ship were special and could exist on a very high temperature.
Concerning conservation of momentum, if we discover a new phenomenon that is not related to momentum/movement but related to stretching/compactification of spacial dimension then conservation of momentum is thrown out the window since the object is not moving but space around it is moving around the object.
The EM drive was seeing some small scale thrust in lab settings, and one was launched to space a couple months ago to see for sure. It'll probably be a dud since I haven't heard about it since the launch, but who knows?
Momentum is only explained by experimental observations. Inertia, centrifugal "force"...etc. are in fact dynamic space pressures. Static space pressure is gravity for example, what is created by mass, away from them (space curving backwards to the mass or object). Dynamic space pressure is a similar caracteristic happening inside the objects but curving outwards (lot of space inside material). That inside space curving is causing effects in case of accelerations, inertia, centrifugal "force" (centrifugal space pressure, more exact)...etc. Is a possibility to create a closed propulsion, what is NOT without energy input, but is way more efficient than rocket propulsion. Propulsion to move on the fabric of space. In fact rocket (jet) propulsion is in fact using "space pressure", accelerating material ... Possible that Black Holes don't even have inertia or momentum, cause: no internal space in them. They have only statical space pressure ("gravity"). Black Holes move WITH the fabric of space but NOT ON the fabric of space. But that is a different subject all together. (Space physics...)
How is an isolated system defined? How is such a state achieved in a real experiment?
for the ion to slow down, it must give energy to the device's shell as heat. this is also energy which increases the mass of the drive therefore slow it down once again. i think the reason of that thing made a thrust is that some of the heat got disposed to the testing device or the surrounding. remenber u cant dispose energy out as heat in vaccum. u can do light but u can just shoot light to thrust at the first place
What ? Are you kidding me ? Heat is EM radiation . Tell me that does not travel in space .
@@GarretKrampe heat do travel as EM radiation. but it is such smaller ammount . conduction in atomsphere is much much faster
Very nice video (as usual).
PS. The result from 12:10 I like to derive in a different way. We start with E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (c=1). We take the derivative with respect to time and obtain 2*E*dE/dt = 2*p \dot dp/dt. dp/dt is a force, E = gamma*m*c^2, p = gamma*m*v, and we are done.
How do you take a time derivative when the basic premise of special relativity is inertial reference frames. In an inertial reference the time derivative of velocity is zero.
@@joeboxter3635 In special relativity we can consider accelerated bodies with respect to the inertial frame.
If the time derivative of velocity is zero, as you say, then also the time derivative of gamma is zero, and there is no point in writing the equation from 12:10.
physics for Engine GREEN FORCE asymmetry th-cam.com/video/CdZv6nMqE-w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hspNGqI5anV_qpkZ
I am not saying that reactionless drives work, but I can't help but be reminded that people once said that heavier-than-air powered flight also defied the laws of physics.
These people were all very silly, though, because birds clearly exist.
@@vacuumdiagrams652 Birds have feathers and feathers are the lightest material we have in the universe which is why we use them in gravity demonstrations e.g dropping a hammer vs feather. So thanks to feathers birds are lighter than air.
@@asandax6birds are certainly NOT lighter than air. Even their feathers are not lighter than air and fall down when there is no upward wind. If birds stop flapping their wings, they fall down, because no lift is created that opposes gravity. If birds were lighter than air, they would not need wings to produce lift. They would simply fly upwards like balloons, which ARE lighter than air.
Even if our formulas are wrong, they are very close to the truth, or we would have noticed.
So build a working model, if it generates even the tiniest amount of *verifiable* thrust, we'll have something to work with.
a inertia drive you need to create a down hill to generate acceleration. does not matter what medium used to generate the force. the force going uphill has less energy then the one going down hill.
I'm assuming he will power the thing with his perpetual motion machine.
The gyros do produce force and produce movement in space, in fact that is why On the ISS they have to keep all the things attach to cables because if those things bounce and hit the ISS from inside that can change the ISS direction
we need use special direction to fly th-cam.com/video/CdZv6nMqE-w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hspNGqI5anV_qpkZ
Make that make sense...
There is one way you could have an apparent reactionless drive there really would not actually be reactionless. That would be a case where the reaction mass is the entire mass of the rest of the universe or at least a reasonably large local portion of it. For example, if the reaction mass is the mass of the solar system, what would be the acceleration of the reaction Mass if you are trying to accelerate say a vehicle the size of Starship at 1G.
I'm not saying that any such drive is possible in practice, it's just that it is a way of getting the same effect as a reactionless drive without violating the conservation of momentum.
I thought that conservation of momentum only applies in a closed system, which is defined as one where the mass remains constant, and net external force is zero. What if the propulsion system is not a closed system with a varying inertial or gravitational mass?
A closed system is defined as a system that has no interactions with the external environment. Depending on how you define "mass", the mass in a closed system might change, but the momentum is still conserved.
Conservation of momentum in closed system is not valid always. In short time world will see that with a working device.
If you want your mass to change or if you use the outer environment to push against, then you basically arrive back to traditional forms of propulsion.
@@mkoluacik so how is that going?
a law can be violated as long as there is another law that cancels it
Maybe the next video should cover the revolutionary new perpetual-motion machine that is taking the world by storm!!!
Most of the scientists said human will never fly in a ship heavier then air
Even if the whole object is not moving but the drive still can create electricity on board for air/water.
Reactionless drive is possible under a field like river pushing a boat to downstream.
I've gotten a patent for an inertial force "polarizer" that in essence a "reactionless" drive. I did experiments to fully understand the source of the gyroscopic effect (nuclear unwinding) and used that knowledge to create a mechanical catalyst for releasing nuclear energy in a straight line direction (polarization). Take that all you Newton and Einstein worshippers!
2:21 Haha! Nice! 😁👍👍👍
What about the MEGA drive?
It was lovely, I played Sonic 2 and 3 quite a lot as a kid
Reactionless drives will be based on quantum effects and conservation of momentum is not quantum law
As long as quantum effects obey spatial invariance, they will have conservation of momentum. And as far as we know, they do. Please don't treat “quantum” as “magic.”
Change the rule to : "Energy can be created only when the applied force is the inherent property of the source"
These engines work only when there is an influence of gravity or any push back force which is already getting exerted on the whole rocket. in space it does't work that way, even if he tries to use the em field origin from top x or y axes instead of z axis directly.
AAAND the gyroscopic devices on ISS ment for correcting of the orbit are what? Rockets?
Theyr big gyroscopes, which work by conservation of angular momentum.
How do you think those are relevant to the video?
photons travel as waves and are particles on impact. what does the transition from wave to particle do to the mass?
I love mechanics.
Explain inertial drive then. Can you? If you give a serious response maybe I'll try to explain.
Makes you wonder if those Ufo's shown from the Air Force had used some type of Helical engines. They mentioned the crafts had no heat /exhaust coming from the back of it.
new uaps shot down a couple of days ago, wondering if it is another country then it may be this technology they are using since some have reported that the objects had no means of propulsion and affected their aircrafts
Well human mathematics does not account for forbidden numbers, so of course from the conventional perspective it can never work, but the conventional perspective is not the truth.
Forbidden numbers? What are those? Forbidden by and to whom?
In the UK you can't drink unless you are 18, so 17 is forbidden.
I'm intrigued.
@@narfwhals7843 Certain values or concepts that yet to be developed or conceived by humans
It is very hard to formulate the interaction with the universe, the particle soup and and make any meaningful observation with out pure experimentation.
someone smarter than me please tell me why you couldn't just release the ions at rear of the engine to create forward thrust
We already have ion engines, but they provide very little thrust
Hi all.
Here is what I think.
Im Not a scientist
1. The projects can't be tested near any gravitational ambient such as earth or near it. Any test results on earth will be basically wrong and redundant.
2. I think assuming math or current physics laws will not apply correctly in space .
3. I do see a anti / or a gravitational engine working in near future and I do think it will be the only way [ at least for a ling time ] to travel faster than light by continuously compounding momentum , speed, time , distance.
4. I do encourage to test more and test in space not on earth . Not on simulated amti gravity scenarios as well
The only way to make a Starshipengine without exhoust is by somehow grabbing the fabric of space and pull. Assuming space is something rather than nothing.
This is however not reactionless...
Let me ask you, how does light move? Where is the trust?
Light can actually produce thrust.
Look up beam-powered propulsion and solar sails if you're interested.
What different laser thrust with Microwave EM drive thrust ?
As an object gets lighter, it takes less thrust to accelerate. A kilogram would need more thrust than a gram, which would require more thrust than a milligram, to accelerate to a given velocity. Photons have zero mass. Therefore, it takes 0 thrust to accelerate a photon to lightspeed. Therefore, as soon as a photon is created, it accelerates off without needing thrust.
There's no thrust. Light is produced and instantly travels at its constant speed. There is no thrust as it doesn't need to accelerate, stop or change direction.
the EM drive as laid out is NOT a reactionless drive. It IS a REACTION drive. LOL!
I guess Thomson Townsend brown couldn’t have created Electrogravitics
Physics Unsimplified , you are 50 years behind. My question is , what would someone pay for it? It is very real.
You should to learning russian phase shift propulsion
Most obvious to the casual observer
I think its possible sandy kidd 1983 made a ractionless motor that run off gyroscopics and it worked "violating your laws of physics" then he came to america to help fun and research the idea and died not long after
Amazing, I really liked this video, understood 60% of it as It's been a while since I didn't do math after gradutating lol.
I really think that we reached our boundaries with normal Physics, My hope for the future is not to break the law, but to discover news fields where we can push the boundaries again.
So that means it won't work?
Today of the Ivo LTD Quantum Drive launches and this video will have to be remade... quantized inertia can produce thrust without particles just as surely as black holes event Horizons interact with virtual particles to create Hawking radiation virtual particles will interact with rindler Horizons created by an accelerating object to create Unruh radiation you can apply this concept even further to just synthetically program an object's inertia via the quantum vacuum that would be called a Horizon Drive look at the Salvatore Pais u.s. Navy UFO patents.
It didn't launch. McCulloch is deeply wrong about his theory.
See that’s the old way of thinking that something has to be shot out to go forward. There is other ways specially if you can create gravity fields. And let’s not forget the EM drive was tested successfully too so call it impossibly all you way it’s your understanding of conversation of momentum that’s wrong not the test results.
Thank you for opening the video with "they won't work".
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to think about such ideas, but at least people should do their research when they realize their machines violate the laws of physics. This analysis has basically been done. 100 years ago. By _Einstein himself_ .
Of course the laws of physics might be wrong. But all of these proposals could have saved themselves some embarrassment by just thinking one step further...
When did Einstein do this? I was not aware that Einstein did research in reactionless (ie thrust less) motion. Did Einstein explain how light propagates without thrust or reaction?
@@joeboxter3635 Einstein didn't have to explain that. Maxwell already did. Light is a wave in the electromagnetic field.
And it doesn't move without reaction. Light has momentum. When an object emits light in one direction the object is pushed the other way.
Einstein analyzed the effects of forces perpendicular to the direction of motion. For him this lead to the concept of transverse and longitudinal mass.
@@joeboxter3635 well know ; light emission involve thrust or reaction. propagation at constent speed never need thrust
Why are they saying it does not work ? they do work, we see them working, look think about it you can create momentum by a gyro and then ... you got inertia on the gyro, then use that inertia as something to have friction against to and then from there move
It wouldn't work in space. The gyroscope needs something to lean on so it can translate and you need to spin it first which cannot be done in space either.
@@StephanBuchin Look at an engine when you start it it jumps and not due to the base it moves againts itself
@@StephanBuchin Have you see a cat in the air doing a double jump ?
@@StephanBuchin They use their own mass to propel on the air a bit more
@@StephanBuchin the 3r law of newton do not work as you expect on spinning acceleration
Sorry to inform you but 'anti-gravity' /electrogravity is coming.
The laws of physics work differently at the nanoscale. The scientific community is still stuck in the bulk engineering the classical scientific methods. This will not solve our endeavor for advancing advancements.
I dont think your being accurate. Conservation of momentum relates to invariance of the Lorenzian in Euclidean space. We know space is not Euclidean locally due to gravity and there are good symmetry arguments that it might not globally either although no direct measure is now possible of the later. Nobel prize winning physicist showed it was possible to swim in spacetime which could convey momentum in a gravitational well, although calculations of the effect is miniscule. I have no doubt based on established physical principles, it is possible and happens based upon what we know about space and the origin of the momentum law. Whether it is useful or practical is another question, but given we dont have a quantum theory of gravity, that cannot be ruled out either.
Right. But a non mathematical explanation is that they misinterpreted Lorenze contraction thinking that transverse motion would result in contraction in every dimension. Only the component of velocity in the direction of travel would result in contraction in that direction. Is that right?
However the idea of saying that all the inertial engine design doesn't work is just not correct, there are some drives that actually work and they work at places outside the earth ( i mean in space ), Eric Lathwaite's gyroscopic propulsion system is under this category with a small defect. actaully the gyroscopic precession doesn't work in space when the ship is in rest, but with a gentle push within the ship when the ship moves, this propulsion can be tuned to act to propel.
there is another kind of propulsion based on inertia that actually works in space, i had made a sample of this design around a decade back, although lift is made, it were very crude design. This propulsion also needs a simple non zero force on the space ship to start with, this kind of small scale non-zero force can be generated even from within the space craft, the over all design can look like in the link posted below
th-cam.com/video/cL2BvfV1eHU/w-d-xo.html
although the design lack a component which actually can make this work with 100% surety, this engine also follow the law of conservation of momentum and exert the backward push needed for forward acceleration via a spin caused, this where most scientist avoid considering the design, saying it doesn't work because it doesn't give out force in the back ward direction to propel forward.
F=ma violated?
you think they wont work because you dont understand the so caled "laws""you quote .do you think a cop will come and bust you?
Scientists call it "a wash". lol. I wish.
2:!4 - Aaaaand the tin foil hat crowd departs in disgust.
Never say never 🛸
it'll never work. - Eeyore
Can't work. Tell that to Klacktar.
all of these are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our universe and its laws
China makes them sold on Temu $12.00
Running around in circles, through mathematical formulas (that may look complicated) is not a solution to prove something. Energy is changing with speed. Some say in Newton's laws manner that an object in movement is changing mass (to "sum up" the fact that it has also stored kinetic energy). So if you are in motion and do have a system with you, that has particles that change speed in regard to itself, it will change the energy and have a bigger change in regard to the environment it is in motion through. If you shoot a bullet at something, the inverse of the force that hits the target doesn't come back and hit you. It already went "somewhere else", at the beginning, being obviously lower than the energy that hit the target. Take a box and put inside a spring that shoots a ball inside against the inner wall. The box will obviously move forward the moment the ball hits the wall and not when it does uncompress. Compress the spring and shoot again and so on. Some people don't understand that science is just humans way to explain how something works trying to find a pattern and predicting a different context. But science doesn't rule anything. Even if the math seems right.
Your box with a ball and a spring would only work when there is something to push against, in this case the ground. You don't have that in space.
@@StephanBuchin the energy is loaded over a longer period of time then the impact discharge time. So the opponent one from the heavier object creates no movement.
If I am wrong this would mean that the astronauts, that push themselves through the international space station, would generate a spin in the space station every time. All depends on the time of charge and discharge of the energy.
@@CorneliuTicu About the astronauts, they actually create small disturbances in the ISS attitude and that's why everything else is carefully locked in place to prevent any collision with the walls. Concerning the reactionless drive, I don't think you can exchange time for space to accelerate a space object though this is an interesting question.
Explains why the universe can expand faster than the speed of light but nothing can travel faster than light these laws are clearly outdated
nothing can travel faster than light into the universe but the univers do not expend into the universe
Red shift, the Doppler effect.
human writen laws... deceptive.
I am an inventor and I have what I call a "C" Drive ,it is a gyroscope folded in half, shaped like the letter C, and it works fine , just because you don't believe it works has no effect whatsoever on the function of my device, I can assure you.
Do you have any proof of this? A video? Anything?
@@sassy6756 do you think the people who run everything would allow an anti gravity device to be released to the public?
That is my plan though ,to upload the details of the C Drive to you tube and let others build it and spread the word about whether or not the drive actually works and whether or not it's worth the trouble to build it ,
My chances of survival aren't that great but at least I'll die doing what I love.
@@izy3792 Then please go ahead and post videos, show us your work. Don't just wave your hands and claim that you have created something impossible.
Laws were made to be broken
That was a nice theoretical lecture of momentum conservation. But: all our equations are based on experimental observation. So: Did anyone try it out in real life? Did anyone really build it? You can not for sure say ""it can not work"", if you even did not bother to try it. I know, it might be a waste of time and money, but hey, so many useless things were already founded in the world, (like gender equality nonsense etc.) , so why not settle this thing once and for all with some experiments...
Here's a paper that states that inertial propulsion is possible..
More like not working yet. Cause science is ever evolving I tend to think that we just discovered how to do it yet
So how do the ufos work ? You do know they are real .
Gyroscopic propulsion is being used on the satellites bouncing the signal of this broadcast 😂😂😂
Yiu really havent done much research. Lifters work betterbin a vacuum btw. First electronpropulsion patents filed before 1900.. back when you couldnt get a patent without a working model
These engines are used to rotate the vehicle, not to push it forward and backward. What is meant in the video is not to rotate, but to push it forward or backward.
Thank, one remark, devices actually respect laws of physics and kindly don't work.
Somebody jelly lol.