

EmDrive  (Source:
It's a a propellantless microwave thruster that defies Newton's laws of motion










Source: Wired

Comments     Threshold


RE: Interesting...keep moving forward
By Shadowself on 2/11/2013 5:02:31 PM , Rating: 3
As you correctly pointed out, laws are basically our tenants on how things work.
Not true. "How" things work is the theory.

Pick up a rock and release it. I falls. Pick it up again and release it again. It falls. Do that one billion times and the rock falls every time. That's the LAW of gravity. Laws are the simple, observed facts. They don't change. Our understanding of HOW it works can change. The HOW is the theory.

Now "how" gravity works, e.g., the inverse square relationship (note I did NOT say inverse square LAW) is a theory. As I mentioned there have been a few experiments in the last several years that have cast a tiny bit of doubt on gravity following an inverse square relationship. So the Theory *MIGHT* need to be tweaked. However, the LAW still holds.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, many, many people confuse Physical Laws with Theories about the Physical Laws. They are not the same. Not even close.

Relativity was an example that violated traditional Newtonian physics, but our definition of the law was modified to account for it. The fundamental physics never change, but our understanding of the laws do.
No. Simply, No. The Law does not change. Newton's theory on how gravity works was flawed (mostly correct, but not quite). Einstein's theory of General Relativity modified Newton's theory. It did not change the law or modify our understanding of the law. Relativity modified the theory. It modified how we try to explain the law.

By theapparition on 2/19/2013 4:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're arguing semantics, and quite wrong at that I might add.

There is no such thing as a "Law" other than what we, as a human race, has determined to be a law.

The fundamental physics is the law, of which we only have a superficial understanding. We have then divided portions of that physics we think we understand into scientifically proven directives that we call "Laws". Your concept of a law as an observed phenomenon (eg drop rock billions of times) is incorrect and not supported by the scientific community. You can adopt your own bastardized definition of a "law" anyway you want, and then attempt to argue from that vantage point. I won't indulge you.

The quote I mentioned before about a scientific law going on trial if violated was from the late, great Carl Sagan. But I'm sure he had no idea what he was talking about.

